It is my Personal Belief that Anyone who Disagrees with me is Wrong no Matter the Subject or Conversation Taking Place and that this is a Really Long Title for a .com Article that Does not Deserve it.

[Plate 386]

So these are my real, controversial opinions that mean nothing but I felt like the VHL pot has been sitting for too long and I wanted to stir it up. I will provide a full list of genuine opinions that are mine and mine alone and nobody will be able to debate me on them no matter how hard they try. This is, for all intents and purposes, a really good idea. 

- Puss in Boots the Last Wish is one of the best animated films of the modern era and it surpasses all of the Shrek sequels in terms of pacing, storytelling, and morals. 
- Screaming into a microphone at full blast and calling it "death metal" is only music because the metal stans that listen to it can't fathom having their feelings hurt over the subjective truth.
- Rice is far superior to bread. 
- Drake had a better songs to sit down and listen to than Kendrick did during the beef. Meet the Grahams is a fantastic diss track but horrible music.
- If Socrates was right in saying he knew nothing, then that means I can't ever have opinions or believe in anything because it will always be wrong. I have to believe I know something in order to be a human being, otherwise I turn into a B.C. era greek sheep that's well overrated. 

Anyway you can come at me in the comments.

[LucyXpher 1,409]

1 hour ago, Plate said:

If Socrates was right in saying he knew nothing, then that means I can't ever have opinions or believe in anything because it will always be wrong. I have to believe I know something in order to be a human being, otherwise I turn into a B.C. era greek sheep that's well overrated. 

Well nobody can truly know anything because there’s no way to guarantee what you think you know is true.  This doesn’t preclude you from having opinions— in fact that’s really all of what science is, educated and informed opinions a.k.a. theories or hypotheses.  It’s still worthwhile to have a working theory, opinion, or belief as it can lead deeper and stimulate conversation, but nothing is ultimately provable unless you have knowledge of the end of all things I.e. the origin and end of the universe.

 

Its my belief that you have never listened to good death metal.

 

 

[Grape 676]

Half the word count needed is in the title alone

[Plate 386]

16 hours ago, LucyXpher said:

Well nobody can truly know anything because there’s no way to guarantee what you think you know is true.  This doesn’t preclude you from having opinions— in fact that’s really all of what science is, educated and informed opinions a.k.a. theories or hypotheses.  It’s still worthwhile to have a working theory, opinion, or belief as it can lead deeper and stimulate conversation, but nothing is ultimately provable unless you have knowledge of the end of all things I.e. the origin and end of the universe.

 

Its my belief that you have never listened to good death metal.

 

 

1+1=2 is an absolute truth. You might argue that it's a social construct and it does not count but I would argue that it certainly does. I mean even pythagorean "theorem" was understood in Egypt well before Pythagoras laid eyes on it. To argue that nothing is provable unless you know quite literally everything in the universe is to imply that a hockey player wouldn't know anything about stick lifting because they aren't a cook, or that a data analyst couldn't understand data because they're not fully versed in Buddhism. 

I have listened to what people describe as "good death metal" and it sounds almost as bad as nails on a chalkboard.

[LucyXpher 1,409]

4 hours ago, Plate said:

1+1=2 is an absolute truth. You might argue that it's a social construct and it does not count but I would argue that it certainly does. I mean even pythagorean "theorem" was understood in Egypt well before Pythagoras laid eyes on it. To argue that nothing is provable unless you know quite literally everything in the universe is to imply that a hockey player wouldn't know anything about stick lifting because they aren't a cook, or that a data analyst couldn't understand data because they're not fully versed in Buddhism.

1+1=2 is probably true and seems to work in all applications, but our scope of the universe is so incredibly minuscule that to claim we know anything absolutely is incredibly anthropocentric.  Human existence on the earth makes up such a small portion of the history of the earth, throwing it back to ancient Egypt barely scratches the surface.  Saying you can’t know anything doesn’t mean what you think you know isn’t true.  It just means that there is no certainty until you can explain the origin of the universe and work your way backwards.  If you don’t accept that then you have a problem with the scientific method.  Why do you need to be so certain that you “know” anything?

Edited October 29 by LucyXpher

[Victor 10,940]

21 hours ago, Plate said:

- Puss in Boots the Last Wish is one of the best animated films of the modern era and it surpasses all of the Shrek sequels in terms of pacing, storytelling, and morals. 

Impossible because Shrek 2 is one of the best animated films of all time

 

21 hours ago, Plate said:

- Rice is far superior to bread.

They're not the same category of food? It's like saying ketchup is far superior to beer.

[Plate 386]

2 hours ago, LucyXpher said:

1+1=2 is probably true and seems to work in all applications, but our scope of the universe is so incredibly minuscule that to claim we know anything absolutely is incredibly anthropocentric.  Human existence on the earth makes up such a small portion of the history of the earth, throwing it back to ancient Egypt barely scratches the surface.  Saying you can’t know anything doesn’t mean what you think you know isn’t true.  It just means that there is no certainty until you can explain the origin of the universe and work your way backwards.  If you don’t accept that then you have a problem with the scientific method.  Why do you need to be so certain that you “know” anything?

I don't understand why the origin of the universe matters to my current understanding of anything. There are things humans will never know. We are not the ultimate universal species, just simply the apex predator on earth. Knowing one thing, no matter how small in scale, does not detract from the inherent value that information provides. And to say that the sheer scale of the universe reverts any knowledge understood by current civilization is just something outside of the scope of this conversation. 

Humanity, thus far, has been a blimp in lifespan of however long we think the universe has existed for. It is the pursuit of truths, and the cynicism of current information, that pushes us forward in that regard. None of that is done without foundational information that has been critical to civilization. Basic concepts like life and death are key and indisputable. I don't need to know about the origins of the universe and backtrack my entire history as an animal to prove that I am alive. 

Also, I don't know why resenting the process of working backwards to the beginning of the universe has anything to do with having problems with the scientific method. From my current understanding, the scientific method mostly exists to prevent a person from having bias when conducting any form of science, not necessarily proving something to be true. 

[Plate 386]

1 hour ago, Victor said:

Impossible because Shrek 2 is one of the best animated films of all time

 

They're not the same category of food? It's like saying ketchup is far superior to beer.

Shrek 2 is great, just not as great as The Last Wish. Also, both rice and bread are whole grain foods so that's why I put them in the same category. What you do with them is completely different but their place in cooking is relatively similar.

[Victor 10,940]

1 minute ago, Plate said:

Shrek 2 is great, just not as great as The Last Wish. Also, both rice and bread are whole grain foods so that's why I put them in the same category. What you do with them is completely different but their place in cooking is relatively similar.

Strongly disagree because bread has no place in cooking. You might have it with something you cooked but it is the end result of something else - baking, or flour, or grain, depending on how you want to look at it.

 

Bread is more comparable to cake than rice.

[Plate 386]

1 minute ago, Victor said:

Strongly disagree because bread has no place in cooking. You might have it with something you cooked but it is the end result of something else - baking, or flour, or grain, depending on how you want to look at it.

 

Bread is more comparable to cake than rice.

Okay then I will change my statement to wheat because it's still true.

[LucyXpher 1,409]

51 minutes ago, Plate said:

Basic concepts like life and death are key and indisputable. I don't need to know about the origins of the universe and backtrack my entire history as an animal to prove that I am alive.

They are actually very much disputable, and have for a long time been the source of much debate and even war.  I don’t think you can even prove your own existence, even though it seems self evident.  Every statement, theory, or fact rests on assumptions that we take as “knowledge” because they allow us to move and function and not endlessly spin our wheels, but there is no categorical certainty about any of it.  It’s one of the reasons why Descartes “cogito ergo sum” doesn’t hold up because it assumes its conclusion in its proposal, “I think therefore I am”.  You can’t assume the “I” in your proof of the “I am”, it’s like using a word to define itself.  
 

If you can prove your own existence to me then maybe I’ll change my mind.  But I don’t think you can. The number of holes to poke in any argument is practically infinite because so much is assumed— which is why the only way to categorically prove anything is to know the origin of all things and work backwards.  

 

Again, this isn’t life changing, it just means you “know” less than you think.  More than anything, this is a linguistic and semantic distinction based on the way we use words rather than a philosophical one.  

Edited October 29 by LucyXpher

[Victor 10,940]

2 hours ago, Plate said:

Okay then I will change my statement to wheat because it's still true.

Wheat is so much more versatile than rice though.

[Gustav 6,406]

10 hours ago, Plate said:

I have listened to what people describe as "good death metal" and it sounds almost as bad as nails on a chalkboard.

I don’t personally listen to a lot of metal, especially in the sphere you seem to be describing. But you would be surprised at how much of it throws together legitimately great songwriting and technical ability, and how much of it is influenced by things like classical music. 
 

I’m not going to debate you on whether it’s appealing because that’s a matter of opinion. There’s just also so much metal that isn’t just screaming that probably doesn’t match your perception of what the genre is in the first place. Give Leprous (for example) a shot sometime. 

[diamond_ace 3,112]

Haven't seen The Last Wish, enjoyed Shrek 2, but you're both missing the forest for the trees re: animated movies.

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is the greatest animated movie of all time.