Yes, that's what I was saying. But he didn't offer any insight into his views, simply that he has them for whatever reason. Similarly, an insane person could believe in wizards, and someone else who may just as well be insane could say "I agree with you" and nothing else. It really doesn't offer anything to support the intellectual side of things, only an ego boost. This doesn't matter though, it's moreorless an ad hominem I brought forward that I felt reflected the overall tone of your argument.Ambidextroid wrote:I was actually saying I was happy that someone agreed tha TF2 was better than CoD, and that he was "on my side", nothing more.
You think, or you know?Ambidextroid wrote:I think you are the one misusing the word
You can technically still call it an opinion if it's invalid, at that point it's just an invalid opinion, which is in some cases synonymous with an erroneously identified personal preference. Dictionary definitions are made to be as concise as possible, and often will assume the reader has a certain level of knowledge/experience in order to be able to interpret it correctly (and this is entirely provable through the classic definition loop, where one definition might lead to another, which in turn will lead you to another, and then eventually back to the original or to nowhere at all). In this case, while the definition is quite literal and easy to interpret, it prays that you also understand the definition of any adjective you wish to attach to it as well, such as 'invalid'.Ambidextroid wrote:This is the dictionary definition of opinion: "a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
There is noting about evidence against an opinion making it invalid, as that would defeat the purpose of the word.
You've just contradicted your entire dictionary-based belief on opinion validity, that being that it does not have to be based on fact or knowledge. If we go according to what you said a moment ago, it wouldn't matter that you factually exist; the opinion would still be valid because it doesn't have to be based off of any sort of real-world fact.Ambidextroid wrote:If someone said "in my opinion I don't exist" then that is invalid, because it's saying "I believe this fact is false".
Consequently, you're completely right, that opinion would be invalid, just as invalid as your opinion regarding the objective fun-factor of realism in games in the face of any evidence that proves the fun-factor is factually subjective. It doesn't matter whether the truth is the opposite of your opinion or there is no single truth, they are both invalid because they don't at all represent factual reality.
Appealing to the masses is not in any way, shape or form an argument. Each one of these people have their own personal preference, and you would probably only take part in something (a certain activity/game/sport) if it aligned with your personal preference. Therefore, obviously, a high percentage of people who avidly play Team Fortress 2 are going to have a similar personal preference, the same way that a lot of the people who play Call of Duty are going to hold a personal preference (for Call of Duty).Ambidextroid wrote:My beliefs do apply outside of personal preference, because many, many people would agree with me.
I'm sure if you took a moment, it wouldn't be so hard. I'll regularly spend an hour typing up a post like this and ensuring that I completely understand the other side as best I can. I also proof-read so as to avoid contradictions and enormous amounts of typos.Bradandez wrote:This is why I don't argue with Ad. He writes a wall of text and my brain dies halfway through reading the damn thing!
I only saw what appeared to be a very questionable thought process, so I wanted to discuss it.
