TubeNet

Correctness is subjective. He makes a lot of absolute statements that he feels are correct, but is correct for someone else. So in his eyes, he is, in fact, correct quite often. I think few people on this forum can say that they are right most of the time (exception: 13).

Ah, yes. Let us make sure we distinguish between positive statements expressing facts and normative statements expressing opinion or relative value.

Kind of like the old joke:
"I see you're wearing a necktie."
"That's your opinion."
"Yeah? Well, your necktie is ugly."
"Is that a fact?"

bloke wrote:Personality threads aren't very funny (except "Who is Bloke?")

...but I'm curious:

Correctness is subjective.

I guess they've been teaching gobbledegoop like this in schools for decades now...??

Quod est veritas?

bloke wrote:I guess they've been teaching gobbledegoop like this in schools for decades now...??

Well, it's been going on in legislative bodies for more than a century at least:

http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localg ... _Story.htm

bloke wrote:Personality threads aren't very funny (except "Who is Bloke?")

...but I'm curious:

Correctness is subjective.

I guess they've been teaching gobbledegoop like this in schools for decades now...??

Heh, it's not really something I picked up in school. I'm just refering to the amount of things that gets discussed on here that isn't black and white, isn't clear cut, isn't true or false. My comment wasn't meant to apply to topics outside of the tubenet atmosphere (but it could, given right circumstances).

Hypothetically, if you disagree with my statement, then doesn't that prove my statement? Since I believe it to be accurate, but you believe it to be inaccurate, then my statement is subjective.

Again, that's not what really matters. There are tons of questions ask here that require opinions for answers instead of facts (and vice versa). Sometimes the two get mixed up and people get flamed.

Anyways, that's my little self-defense. I'm gonna go ahead and agree to a meandering of this thread to a non-personal attack topic because that's not what they've been teaching us in school nowadays

Oh, I also want to make clear I didn't intend my original post to be an attack against tubashaman, even though it looks like it. My intent was to point out what I felt the dealio was, and if it came across otherwise, I apologize for being a jerk.

Doc wrote: In vino veritas.

Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man.
--A. E. Housman

And old Descartes was a bloody old fart: I drink, therefore I am. (with apologies to Monty Python)

The Monty Python [img]Bruces'%20Philosophers%20Song[/img]

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.