THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: jeph on 27 Nov 2006, 09:52
-
I'm for them.
-
well, you're wrong.
-
If opinions are like assholes, then the title of this thread is "anyone here have an asshole on assholes", and I think that's a topic worth exploring.
-
He views himself as more of a spelunker, actually.
A spelunker of the anus.
-
Perhaps a, colon connoisseur?
-
POSTING IN A LEGENDARY ASSHOLE
-
Opinions are shit.
You know, like from asses.
-
I love you guys with my butt.
-
I'm indifferent towards opinions. I mean, does anyone really need them?
-
Opinions... hm.. they're awright dog. A little pitchy.
-
My opinion is that the relative fun of having an opinion is directly proportionate to how loudly you voice it, added with the inversely proportioned representation of how little you listen to the opinions of others.
But thats just like, my opinion, man.
-
I disagree.
-
I don't have an opinion on opinions, but I have an opinion on opinions on opinions, and that opinion is that opinions on opinions are shit.
-
thankyou for sharing that opinion.
-
I hate it when people use the argument, "That's just your opinion!" No shit, dumbass, 'cause if it wasn't, I wouldn't be arguing it.
-
You're all wrong.
-
My question is this: what is your opinion on pinions??
-
I hate it when people use the argument, "That's just your opinion!" No shit, dumbass, 'cause if it wasn't, I wouldn't be arguing it.
Depending on what situation you're in, that sounds like the right response.
You might want to say what kind of arguement it is you're talking about.
If it's something subjective like music or movies, then it was right, and
it just means they have just as much ground as you.
Subjective things shouldn't be argued. I'm sad people are
stupid enough to argue them.
I'm sure that's not what you're talking about though, I just got to thinking on
it when you said that.
-
Thing is though, what is subjective and what isn't?
-
This is subjective: I think rock/metal sucks because distortion sucks.
This isn't: That's a guitar.
This is subjective: I love horror movies, they are supirior thanks to their plot devices. Even their cliches are better.
This is not: I have a foot.
Anything that can be backed up by facts isn't subjective.
Anything that can't be backed up by actual facts and are
based soley on your opinion? Subjective.
-
I'll opinion your opinion.
....
Errrr, that sounded better in my head. ?Let me try again.
I'll asshole your opinion.
Oh, yeah! totally more like it!
-
So, basically, anything that you CAN argue about is subjective?
-
Basicly? Yeah.
If people would just deal in facts and not in opinions,
this world would be a far less stressful place. But thanks
to personal biases and unprovable opinions, everyone is
constantly fighting. And I mean that on a grand scale, not
just a small one.
-
Opinions = Personality.
*edit*
Actually, perhaps better phrased as Opinions = Character
-
So, basically, anything that you CAN argue about is subjective?
I could argue he doesn't have a foot. Someone will need to send me enough money to buy an ounce or so of Purple Haze first though.
-
Opinions? Fuck that noise, I don't have any. I just know everything.
-
Man it is just your opinion that you do have a foot. Is the foot your foot? Why do you have possesion of it? Does the foot have you? Is your foot a foot, is your foot made of feet? What is a foot? Do you have 12 inches of whatever it is? If this foot is not a foot then is it really a foot? Can you have an ankle and toes without a foot? Does your foot have toes? If your foot has toes how can you have those same toes?
"Is the room still her room when she's not in it?"
-
Duuuuude I never thought of that *cough cough*
-
Well I am of the opinion that I thought of that concurrently with you. Your post pre-dates mine, but I am of the opinion that you did not actually make the argument but rather stated you were of the opinion that you could or would make the argument if someone else was of the opinion that it would be a good idea to purchase purple haze for you.
As such, I am of the opinion that our posts can peacefully co-exist.
Also, after reading the word foot so many times, I am of the opinion that foot is not the correct spelling of foot.
-
Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one, pretty much all of them stink and I have no desire to see any of them. Keep your asshole to yourself. I don't give a damn about your asshole. Show me your asshole and I will destroy you.
-
Here's my opinion:
(http://www.gdnctr.com/middle_finger.jpg)
-
Your band sucks.
-
This is subjective: I think rock/metal sucks because distortion sucks.
This isn't: That's a guitar.
This is subjective: I love horror movies, they are supirior thanks to their plot devices. Even their cliches are better.
This is not: I have a foot.
Anything that can be backed up by facts isn't subjective.
Anything that can't be backed up by actual facts and are
based soley on your opinion? Subjective.
Almost all arguments are on subjective subjects. That's why there are arguments.
-
No it isn't.
-
That'll be $5.00 please!
-
To people who say they don't want to hear anyone else's opinion on something, I have to ask: what exactly do you talk to people about?? Even taking the Internet on its own, it's hard to go anywhere and get only objectivity.
I don't read music reviews to back up my own opinion and make myself feel good, I read them because I wonder what other people think about such and such's album. A handful of times, getting someone else's opinion on something has helped me understand my own. But I tend to go beyond simple terms of "I like this/I don't like this" when it comes to reviews and music, so maybe I'm in the minority. But now I'm rambling.
-
No you're not.
-
This is subjective: I think rock/metal sucks because distortion sucks.
This isn't: That's a guitar.
This is subjective: I love horror movies, they are supirior thanks to their plot devices. Even their cliches are better.
This is not: I have a foot.
Anything that can be backed up by facts isn't subjective.
Anything that can't be backed up by actual facts and are
based soley on your opinion? Subjective.
Almost all arguments are on subjective subjects. That's why there are arguments.
Precisely. Which is why arguments are idiotic, useless wastes of time.
And you can argue things that can't be proven, I suppose. BUT, still
useless and idiotic to argue, since you cant prove it. People should leave each other
alone, talk to people who agree with you on those subjects, and talk to
people who don't agree on other things.
And by the way, I'm not the kind of person who instantly says "Get your opinion out of my face."
I believe in tolerating opinions. As long as they dont start trying to destory mine
At which point, I will walk away from you.
-
Opinion #39.
-
Option #39 is shit.
-
@Cutman- It seems you would cultivate a new way of thinking. After all, every English teacher on the face of the earth is there to help kids learn how to argue by means of writing essays.
-
I accept your opinion that Option #39 is shit, ironoxide, sir.
Whew, it's a good thing I was Opinion #39.
-
From Jeanette Winterson's book Art Objects (http://www.jeanettewinterson.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=16):
It is impossible to legislate taste, and if it were possible, it would be repugnant. There are no commandments in art and no easy axioms for art appreciation. 'Do I like this?' is the question anyone should ask themselves at the moment of confrontation with the picture. But if 'yes', why 'yes'? The obvious direct emotional response is never simple, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the 'yes' or 'no' has nothing to do with the picture in its own right.
'I don't understand this poem'
'I never listen to classical music'
'I don't like this picture'
are common enough statements but not ones that tell us anything about books, painting or music. They are statements that tell us something about the speaker. That should be obvious, but in fact, such statements are offered as criticisms of art, as evidence against, not least because the ignorant, the lazy, or the plain confused are not likely to want to admit themselves as such. We hear a lot about the arrogance of the artist but nothing about the arrogance of the audience. The audience, who have not done the work, who have not taken any risks, whose life and livelihood are not bound up at every moment with what they are making, who have given no thought to the medium or the method, will glance up, flick through, chatter over the opening chords, then snap their fingers and walk away like some monstrous Roman tyrant. This is not arrogance; of course they can absorb in a few moments, and without any effort, the sum of the artist and the art.
If the obvious direct emotional response is to have any meaning, the question 'Do I like this?' will have to be the opening question and not the final judgement. An examination of our own feelings will have to give way to an examination of the piece of work. This is fair to the work and it will help clarify the nature of our own feelings; to reveal prejudice, opinion, anxiety, even the mood of the day. It is right to trust our feelings but right to test them too. If they are what we say they are, they will stand the test, if not, we will at least be less insincere. But here we come back to the first hurdle of art, and it is a high one: it shows us up.
When you say 'This work has nothing to do with me'. When you say 'This work is boring/pointless/silly/obscure/elitist etc.', you might be right, because you are looking at a fad, or you might be wrong because the work falls so outside the safety of your own experience that in order to keep your own world intact, you must deny the other world of the painting. This denial of imaginative experience happens at a deeper level than our affirmation of our daily world. Every day, in countless ways, you and I convince ourselves about ourselves. True art, when it happens to us, challenges the 'I' that we are.
There is everything that I feel needs to be said about opinion as it relates to music, art, books, film, etc.
-
TOMMY IS RIGHT.
most of the times...we don't talk about it when he's not...he get's angry
(don't tell him it's one of those times)
-
Johnny C, rock on, truly 'nuff said.
-
Actually, CM, I appreciate it, but Tommy has it cased I think. His letters glow. You can't argue.
-
Good god, you're right, those things practicly have
their own gravitational pull.
-
I'm just happy someone's using colored font. And the glowing letters of doom
-
But the question is, Johnny, is does that make what Fall Out Boy and the Black Eyed Peas do legitimate art?
Because if so, it's no criteria I want any part of.
-
The point Winterson is trying to make is that "I like it" or "I don't like it" are not final value judgements. In the book she says that we can actually judge good from bad and to not do so under the pretense of subjectivity results in an overload of bad art. Therefore, you can say "I don't like the Black Eyed Peas." Then you can proceed to break down why. From there, you can say, "The Black Eyed Peas are shit" or you can say, "Hmm, perhaps I don't like them but they are good."
I mean. I'm all about the former. I think that is a value judgement i am comfortable making.
-
Ah, is that what it goes on to say? Then unfortunatley, I
gotta say I don't agree with that.
You can state facts about them, but you can't prove
those facts to be negative things.
What kind of facts would you present that would justify a blanket
statement like "they're shit."?
-
I quite dislike the word prove - it makes no sense. There is very little that we can know absolutely - apparently we can't even know that we exist (not quite sure how this was shown, but I believe Nietzsche showed it). Admittedly, this is taking skepticism to its extreme, but even things like science... There is a reason why it is called the THEORY of gravitation. What facts we chose to accept or not is generally somewhat subjective.
Also, if we stop arguing about subjective things, we will be robots. Humans are entirely subjective creatures - objectivity does not exist.
-
To people who say they don't want to hear anyone else's opinion on something, I have to ask: what exactly do you talk to people about?? Even taking the Internet on its own, it's hard to go anywhere and get only objectivity.
Meaningful conversation for teh lose.
-
i have an opinion.
i do not mind listening to your opinion
i do not want you to force your opinion on me however.
-
My opinion, if I get down to the bare-minimum idea that spawned that opinion, is
BOOBIES.
-
Best opinion evar.
-
I still think your band sucks.
-
You're mistaken, sir. My band is simply named "Sucks." You can see how there'd be some confusion, I think.
-
They're crunchy.
-
Mostly what I'm saying is that opinions are subjective.
If someone else wants to hear them- whether they disagree
or not, and want to discuss them... Good.
What I'm talking about- which upon thinking about it might
not be what this topic was ever supposed to be about, was
trying to force someone to believe that your opinion is right.
Opinions are awesome, sharing them with people
who dont mind hearing them is awesome. Just dont
force them on people.
-
i have an opinion.
i do not mind listening to your opinion
i do not want you to force your opinion on me however.
We can't force our opinions on you because this is the internet.
-
Cutman, why
do your posts look like
poems?
Also, as for the original topic
of the thread:
WHOOSH!
-
First, though, you have to define good music and be able to define it outside of what you like.
-
Since this is a music forum, I'm going to try to stab at a point that's just occured to me.
When I started listening to good music, I became a better person. Would it be fair to say that if I believed another could experience similar benefits, my crusade for good music is just?
Substitute "serving Jesus" for "listening to good music" and you'd be a Christian.
-
Your crusade for what you call (and i generally agree is) "good music" may not be as much on the basis of the quality of the music as the nature of the music. Coltrane allows for more interpretation than MCR. One can listen to one song by an artist like Coltrane and feel on top of the world, the next day the song can be filled with sorrow. With a manufactured de-pop band like MCR, you know exactly how they want you to feel. With other "better" artists, you are open to interpret emotion.
Let us take as an example the Beatles song "Revolution" (either one aside from #9). Depending on the listener, the song can either be a pessimistic depiction of the ills of society, or a message and appeal for the world to better itself with a general optimism for humanity.
-
Wouldn't that mean that many of us would be right about everything, and then we'd end up coming into conflict because I don't own any MCR albums and you don't either, but we don't agree on something??
-
Since this is a music forum, I'm going to try to stab at a point that's just occured to me.
When I started serving Jesus, I became a better person. Would it be fair to say that if I believed another could experience similar benefits, my crusade for serving Jesus is just?
-
I can touch a Bible just about anywhere.
Also, I own no My Chemical Rumpus albums.
-
My Chemical Rumpus.
(http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/biohazard.JPG)
-
I'm pretty much not going to read the rest of these posts in any detail, but I'm totally right. I own no MCR albums.
-
I own no MCR albums either. I did once, but I sold it.
-
Since this is a music forum, I'm going to try to stab at a point that's just occured to me.
When I started pretending to be Stalin, I became a better person. Would it be fair to say that if I believed another could experience similar benefits, my pretending to be Stalin is just?
-
Musical version of the Bible!
-
... didn't somebody already do this?
True story: Parents of a friend went to the cinema to see Jesus Christ Superstar. Halfway through a woman in front of them exclaimed:'Wait! I read a book about this!'
-
I'm just having fun, Tommy. Not doing a personal attack or anything.
-
I can touch a Bible just about anywhere.
That's not important. What's important is where the Bible touches you.
Would you please demonstrate to the court where, precisely, the Bible touched you?? I know it's hard, but...
-
The Bible touched my heart, mind, and soul. *sob* I'm so humiliated.
-
I can touch a Bible just about anywhere.
That's not important. What's important is where the Bible touches you.
Would you please demonstrate to the court where, precisely, the Bible touched you?? I know it's hard, but...
Oh it is important. That's what the reason for my recent arrest. Fuck, in court they even have you swear upon a Bible! Hello, tempting much? What a world...
-
"Sir, please demonstrate on this Bible where he touched you."