|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 24, 2024 15:52:51 GMT
I agree that an opinion requires no facts. However, an opinion which is not based on factual grounding at some level can be challenged. And yes, people can reserve the right not to develop their argument. But if the original argument cannot be developed, based on factually accurate evidence, then that points to a fairly weak argument. An opinion is usually based on facts and experiences. Those facts could be personal and not needed to be shared. The same facts can lead to different opinions. If someone posts a fact or opinion on the Oatcake it can be challenged, a different opinion given, disputed etc.......but it doesn't require the person originating the opinion to engage in the debate, unless they wish to do so...People don't always post for the same reasons as each other and not even for the same reasons depending upon the topic under discussion...some don't want an " argument", but may wish to express their opinion...IMO because some of the regular posters always expect an argument ( their need and perogative) , I think this puts other posters off posting their opinion..some posters perhaps don't see the point in not engaging, other posters don't see the point in discussing the use of word " twat" all night , but that is entirely their perogative. That's my opinion anyway, I don't know if some of it is factual
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 16:16:51 GMT
It surely depends on how that opinion is presented? There's been many cases of opinion being passed off as fact on here, if that's the case they should, and probably will, be called out on it. It's far from unusual to see outrageous claims, particularly on the political threads, surely they shouldn't go unchallenged? A person's opinion is based on their view of the FACTS and it can't be challenged its their own personal opinion and viewpoint and you can't say they are wrong, you either agree or disagree. In debate people often elaborate and have a conversation but I would never say that for arguments sake your opinion on legalisation of cannabis is wrong we have different opinions. If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them.
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Mar 24, 2024 16:21:46 GMT
A person's opinion is based on their view of the FACTS and it can't be challenged its their own personal opinion and viewpoint and you can't say they are wrong, you either agree or disagree. In debate people often elaborate and have a conversation but I would never say that for arguments sake your opinion on legalisation of cannabis is wrong we have different opinions. If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. 'Gaslighting' Jesus wept grow up.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Mar 24, 2024 16:27:33 GMT
The lefties on here tend to use tweets from people no one has heard of for the basis of their facts. The more sensible use life experience and common sense for theirs.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 24, 2024 16:28:04 GMT
A person's opinion is based on their view of the FACTS and it can't be challenged its their own personal opinion and viewpoint and you can't say they are wrong, you either agree or disagree. In debate people often elaborate and have a conversation but I would never say that for arguments sake your opinion on legalisation of cannabis is wrong we have different opinions. If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. I think your facts on Cannabis have been brilliant and illuminating, the ones I've read. As I have said to you I am pretty ambidextrous( deliberate)about the legalisation ( the current situation isn't really working ) BuT other people may take a different view, even after reading all your facts. For instance someone may believe drug taking is wrong on all counts and we should not legalise any more....you may argue with it, claim it is factually incorrect perhaps, but they are entitled to their( wrong in your eyes ) opinion.....and they may wish to express it without having to enter a lengthy debate of justification. Just guessing but perhaps the law about euthanasia, the death penalty and abortion is littered with a mixture of facts and opinions. It depends on the precise context whether the " challenge " , argument etc is appropriate or not , imo ....but either party has a right to not explain OR to challenge irrespective
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 24, 2024 16:30:07 GMT
A person's opinion is based on their view of the FACTS and it can't be challenged its their own personal opinion and viewpoint and you can't say they are wrong, you either agree or disagree. In debate people often elaborate and have a conversation but I would never say that for arguments sake your opinion on legalisation of cannabis is wrong we have different opinions. If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. Who the fuck is going to dare challenge you about cannabis facts Ely?😉
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 24, 2024 16:31:05 GMT
The lefties on here tend to use tweets from people no one has heard of for the basis of their facts. The more sensible use life experience and common sense for theirs. It’s almost as though life experience doesn’t count🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by henry on Mar 24, 2024 16:40:54 GMT
The lefties on here tend to use tweets from people no one has heard of for the basis of their facts. The more sensible use life experience and common sense for theirs. It’s almost as though life experience doesn’t count🤷🏻♂️ Who needs life experience when you can have a left wing think tank.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 16:43:04 GMT
If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. 'Gaslighting' Jesus wept grow up. It's a word commonly used to describe the act of misleading people with false information, other words are available.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 24, 2024 16:44:38 GMT
'Gaslighting' Jesus wept grow up. It's a word commonly used to describe the act of misleading people with false information, other words are available. Almost exclusively used by lefties😀
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 24, 2024 16:45:51 GMT
A person's opinion is based on their view of the FACTS and it can't be challenged its their own personal opinion and viewpoint and you can't say they are wrong, you either agree or disagree. In debate people often elaborate and have a conversation but I would never say that for arguments sake your opinion on legalisation of cannabis is wrong we have different opinions. If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. I'm slightly confused by this mate because I get the impression you've got the hump about the cannabis analogy but just to clarify I was just using it as an example of how people could have different opinions not specifically one I disagreed with 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Mar 24, 2024 16:48:17 GMT
'Gaslighting' Jesus wept grow up. It's a word commonly used to describe the act of misleading people with false information, other words are available. In mard arse circles. 'At worst gaslighting'. Oh no I was gaslight whatever shall I do.
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Mar 24, 2024 16:55:05 GMT
I agree that an opinion requires no facts. However, an opinion which is not based on factual grounding at some level can be challenged. And yes, people can reserve the right not to develop their argument. But if the original argument cannot be developed, based on factually accurate evidence, then that points to a fairly weak argument. An opinion is usually based on facts and experiences. Those facts could be personal and not needed to be shared. The same facts can lead to different opinions. If someone posts a fact or opinion on the Oatcake it can be challenged, a different opinion given, disputed etc.......but it doesn't require the person originating the opinion to engage in the debate, unless they wish to do so...People don't always post for the same reasons as each other and not even for the same reasons depending upon the topic under discussion...some don't want an " argument", but may wish to express their opinion...IMO because some of the regular posters always expect an argument ( their need and perogative) , I think this puts other posters off posting their opinion..some posters perhaps don't see the point in not engaging, other posters don't see the point in discussing the use of word " twat" all night , but that is entirely their perogative. That's my opinion anyway, I don't know if some of it is factual I don't disagree with anything there. Yesterday, on this thread, one contributor made an assertion. He was challenged on it, twice, and has so far declined to respond with any factual basis for the assertion he made. He is entitled to do that, but his argument is weakened because of this. You will doubtless recall cases in a classroom where a youngster would play up, cause a scene, and then walk out of the room, causing further disruption to teacher and students. I think that's what has gone on here. Someone has made a claim, was challenged on it, found that they couldn't back up their original statement, so just abandoned it. All in my opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 16:55:10 GMT
If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. I think your facts on Cannabis have been brilliant and illuminating, the ones I've read. As I have said to you I am pretty ambidextrous( deliberate)about the legalisation ( the current situation isn't really working ) BuT other people may take a different view, even after reading all your facts. For instance someone may believe drug taking is wrong on all counts and we should not legalise any more....you may argue with it, claim it is factually incorrect perhaps, but they are entitled to their( wrong in your eyes ) opinion.....and they may wish to express it without having to enter a lengthy debate of justification. Just guessing but perhaps the law about euthanasia, the death penalty and abortion is littered with a mixture of facts and opinions. It depends on the precise context whether the " challenge " , argument etc is appropriate or not , imo ....but either party has a right to not explain OR to challenge irrespective As I keep saying, if someone presents some facts of their own, even if they're merely anecdotal, then at least that's something and gives an opportunity for discussion. My objection is more to the posts that claim large numbers of people are doing this, don't like this person, there's a revolution coming or whatever, those are the sort of 'opinions' that should be challenged, otherwise we're living in a Walter Mitty world.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 16:56:42 GMT
It's a word commonly used to describe the act of misleading people with false information, other words are available. In mard arse circles. 'At worst gaslighting'. Oh no I was gaslight whatever shall I do. Where did I say it upset me?
|
|
|
Post by mrnovember on Mar 24, 2024 17:12:03 GMT
In mard arse circles. 'At worst gaslighting'. Oh no I was gaslight whatever shall I do. Where did I say it upset me? I'm not sure I implied it did. My point was how pathetic and childish it is.
|
|
|
Post by atillathehoneybee on Mar 24, 2024 17:16:02 GMT
Why do people have issues with others opinions. 2 sentences, one starts with " I think" is an opinion not necessarily based on facts, just interpretation of evidential hearsay... The other starts with " I know " is surely a statement of fact .. At least that's what I know, I think. Or it's what I think I know.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 17:16:18 GMT
Where did I say it upset me? I'm not sure I implied it did. My point was how pathetic and childish it is. Sorry you feel that way, imagine we'll both get over it.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 24, 2024 17:18:15 GMT
So here we have just page one of 20 of one of the many threads made about Meghan Markle. Can anyone show me similar comments made about Kate here? As I said this is only page one of one thread. Alot of these comments were made while both Harry and Meghan were senior royals. So can those who are telling us all that this thread was made because we are anti royals. Can you explain how the people making and liking these comments about royals aren't anti royals? And can you show me where comments made about Kate in this thread are much more worse? Maybe for a fair comparison we can just compare posts on page 1 to begin with as I have about 50+ pages of comments like this about an active royal across multiple threads. What is wrong with being anti royals? They don't represent me, my family or my culture. God knows. Not particularly a fan myself either. Don't have much of an issue per se but don't think we should fund them so heavily as tax payers. It was our taxes which enabled pedos like Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 24, 2024 17:19:24 GMT
I think your facts on Cannabis have been brilliant and illuminating, the ones I've read. As I have said to you I am pretty ambidextrous( deliberate)about the legalisation ( the current situation isn't really working ) BuT other people may take a different view, even after reading all your facts. For instance someone may believe drug taking is wrong on all counts and we should not legalise any more....you may argue with it, claim it is factually incorrect perhaps, but they are entitled to their( wrong in your eyes ) opinion.....and they may wish to express it without having to enter a lengthy debate of justification. Just guessing but perhaps the law about euthanasia, the death penalty and abortion is littered with a mixture of facts and opinions. It depends on the precise context whether the " challenge " , argument etc is appropriate or not , imo ....but either party has a right to not explain OR to challenge irrespective As I keep saying, if someone presents some facts of their own, even if they're merely anecdotal, then at least that's something and gives an opportunity for discussion. My objection is more to the posts that claim large numbers of people are doing this, don't like this person, there's a revolution coming or whatever, those are the sort of 'opinions' that should be challenged, otherwise we're living in a Walter Mitty world. I guess, in this age more than ever, it is up to each of us to verify any information to their own Satisfaction, whatever the source.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 24, 2024 17:19:35 GMT
Swathes of morons Even the most stupid of people Pathetic thread Empty life Bit of a twat Is there any need for all the personal insults and abuse? Care to elaborate. I don't get it. Do we each add a line to continue crafting the song? Gawa, as the incipient poster, did you intend for a band to deliver the message or a solo artist? In my minds eye I see an impassioned George Michael breaking his heart over those words for a suitably respectful live audience. However somebody else may see them being snarled by some sort of punk/Mark E Smith type character? These guilty feet have got no rythym. I'm never gonna dance again the way I danced with you.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 24, 2024 17:21:39 GMT
I have no idea who sent the video from the UFO camera. Where we provided a source? The media were happy to publicise it as evidence she is alive and well carrying heavy bags after abdominal surgery and undergoing cancer treatment. The big deal with the photo is its manipulated to the tenth degree. Not a bit of airbrushing to cover up your acne but articles of clothing missing, misaligned clothing, randomly blurred parts. The metadata showed the image was saved multiple times on Adobe photoshop on a mac book over a series of days. That's not amateur editing on a phone, that's editing at a more professional level. I know many people who maybe use an Instagram filter or put their camera in beauty mode. The amateur photographer however does not tend to use photoshop and when they do they usually focus on their face not the clothing. I know many people have faced cancer, some who wanted people to know some who didn't. I don't know any which were spending days on photoshop creating a fake image, something they don't tend to do on a normal day, to feel normal because of their cancer. At the end of the day the Royal photographer himself even said the media withdrawing the release of a photo was something new. When they put one out at Christmas with an extra leg and missing finger it was still released. Maybe because of that previous image they scrutinised this one more. I don't know who released the picture in the car. I do know it was absolutely not evidence in anyway and I do know our main stream media seemed to want to make it headline news as evidence all is well and good. Who released it as you seem to be keeping up quite well on this news? What the royals and the media did was release a series of manipulated or difficult to identify photos/videos of her over a fortnight period. With photos withdrawn my American counterparts for the first time due to manipulation. This thread wasn't made as a "oh we've not seen Kate in months where is she?". This thread was made as a result of manipulated pictures being released. That was the cause and that should rightly be discussed. The new video has no mole on her face, looks grainy, appears to have a static background, her eyebrow looks weird compared to the genuine "just a few filters" picture released 10 days earlier. Her striped tee shirt even gives a reflection onto a bench. I presume because after a series of manipulated media being released that we now have another dubious video saying she has cancer that means anyway questioning is an embarrassing anti royal traitor who should accept the latest news and not query it. I know all about the little boy who cried wolf and kates cancer may be true but it also may not be true. You don't know and I don't know. But I'm skeptical and I don't really give a shit about what people think because of that. Meghan Markle is part of the Royal family and those who defend the royals and call us anti royalists. No shocker I am opposed to the royal family (doesn't mean I wish death upon them). It seems they're also anti royalists themselves when they say "she's not a nice person" and "only in it for the money". I haven't seen anyone in this thread accuse Kate of either of those? So I don't find it genuine when I see posters who are happy to make personal allegations about the motives of other members of the royal family with no evidence then call those who are talking about proven manipulated images (note images not individual) as evil anti royals with an agenda. It is double standards and I'll call it out. What about the coronavirus thread filled with skeptics and so it should be. I presume those who are skeptical are all an embarrassing stain to society too? Let's not forget how many people lost their lives to this virus. And here we have these evil posters vilified by their own self interests of being right that they continue to pursue their "conspiracies" over a sensitive discussion where many people died. Should they be embarrassed? I don't think they should. They're right to question it. So am I wrong to query if there's a double standard? Not at all. That doesn't make them self righteous, desperate to be right, embarrassing or anything else. They're just being true to themselves. Dare to show concern for Kate after a load of photoshopped images = Very bad anti royalist who hates them all and wants them to die and is desperate to be self righteously correct. Catch yourself on. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical. And I don't feel the tiniest bit of guilt or shame for being skeptical - neither will I be made to feel that way either. I really hope Kate is OK and I hope she lives a long and healthy life. Preferably one not funded by the tax payer as much as it is. But as a person, I wish her well. But I am still concerned about her whereabouts and health and I'm still unsure after the most recent video. With all my heart I hope we see her make public appearances again soon and to put all this tk bed. But there is still a part of me which isn't sure. And I feel I wouldn't be surprised to hear she has died in the future and if we did that would further heighten my doubts. And in regards to the last paragraph. No, I'm not desperate to be right. I hope I'm wrong. But I'll continue to do my own due diligence and I don't really care if some people want to label me as something else for doing that. Are you suggesting it was filmed indoors, with insects flying around the foreground ? Whats wrong with her eyebrow ? Nah I honestly don't know. Maybe it's just a case of blurring the background but its very grainy and static for lack of a better word. It just looks weird compared to the picture a few weeks before like a weird slant 🤣.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Mar 24, 2024 17:23:19 GMT
This is something I’ve noticed a lot on the Oatcake. Regardless of whether you dislike someone for justifiable reasons the need to call someone a T*@t isn’t a great look. I’m not sure whether it’s said to say that they hate someone more than the next person but for me there’s too much hate in the world, isn’t easier to just disagree or dislike especially if you’ve never met the person in question. He didn't call him a twat Gawa. He said he made himself look like one, in his opinion. Big difference. Paul's too dry to look like a twat though. More of an arsehole if anything.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 17:24:03 GMT
As I keep saying, if someone presents some facts of their own, even if they're merely anecdotal, then at least that's something and gives an opportunity for discussion. My objection is more to the posts that claim large numbers of people are doing this, don't like this person, there's a revolution coming or whatever, those are the sort of 'opinions' that should be challenged, otherwise we're living in a Walter Mitty world. I guess, in this age more than ever, it is up to each of us to verify any information to their own Satisfaction, whatever the source. I can't be bothered to check every outrageous claim tbh, I fact check my own stuff as best I can and I'll take seriously other posters that can be arsed to do similar.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 24, 2024 17:24:32 GMT
He didn't call him a twat Gawa. He said he made himself look like one, in his opinion. Big difference. Paul's too dry to look like a twat though. More of an arsehole if anything. What about an old twat?😉
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 17:44:12 GMT
If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. I'm slightly confused by this mate because I get the impression you've got the hump about the cannabis analogy but just to clarify I was just using it as an example of how people could have different opinions not specifically one I disagreed with 🤷♂️ My apologies Mr Franklin, didn't mean it to come across like that, no problem with the analogy, I was just illustrating, badly, my opinion on the importance of actual evidence when presenting an argument 🙂
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 24, 2024 17:49:29 GMT
I'm slightly confused by this mate because I get the impression you've got the hump about the cannabis analogy but just to clarify I was just using it as an example of how people could have different opinions not specifically one I disagreed with 🤷♂️ My apologies Mr Franklin, didn't mean it to come across like that, no problem with the analogy, I was just illustrating, badly, my opinion on the importance of actual evidence when presenting an argument 🙂 How about if people refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented 🤷
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Mar 24, 2024 17:54:52 GMT
If people present the FACTS as part of the reason they hold that opinion then that's fair enough, but to make claims without presenting any facts whatsoever is at best disingenuous and at worst gaslighting. I've presented numerous facts to back up my opinion on cannabis legalisation and I welcome anyone that wants to present facts of their own that dispute them. Who the fuck is going to dare challenge you about cannabis facts Ely?😉 Good point, well made 😄 It's admittedly somewhat quiet on the drug war thread 🤔 think I need some sort of promo drive, I'm thinking free coffee and chocolate hobnobs* to tempt folk in 😉 There's a certain irony in providing legal drugs to encourage people to discuss illegal ones when, by and large, the illegal ones are safer 😂 *Lidl version, Oaties, more or less the same.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Mar 24, 2024 17:57:10 GMT
Who the fuck is going to dare challenge you about cannabis facts Ely?😉 Good point, well made 😄 It's admittedly somewhat quiet on the drug war thread 🤔 think I need some sort of promo drive, I'm thinking free coffee and chocolate hobnobs* to tempt folk in 😉 There's a certain irony in providing legal drugs to encourage people to discuss illegal ones when, by and large, the illegal ones are safer 😂 *Lidl version, Oaties, more or less the same. Chuffedstokie will tell you whether hobnobs and oaties are the same, I imagine exactly the same. Is that what you have for the munchies? Fig Rolls we’re always my go to back in the days I used to “dabble”😉
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 24, 2024 17:57:21 GMT
I'm slightly confused by this mate because I get the impression you've got the hump about the cannabis analogy but just to clarify I was just using it as an example of how people could have different opinions not specifically one I disagreed with 🤷♂️ My apologies Mr Franklin, didn't mean it to come across like that, no problem with the analogy, I was just illustrating, badly, my opinion on the importance of actual evidence when presenting an argument 🙂 It's fine mate I wasn't sure if I'd caused offence that's all, I get what you're saying pal but as you can see by how quickly things escalate on here I genuinely don't like to get involved very often in long winded debates they are repetitive and I get bored easily this is the most I've contributed in quite some time 😁 so more often than not I just post a comment and leave it to others to either agree or not and carry the debate forward 😀
|
|