On opinion vs judgement

[DonkeyMoses]

There have been several threads on this board in which differing opinions have lead to ensueing arguments. Opinions are fine, everybody has them. A little disscussion as to why you hold that opinion and disagree with others is good mental sparing and makes the world that much more interesting. It keeps me on my game. But I think one thing that is lost site of and causes thought provoking debates to become just plain provoking is not having a clear delineation between opinion and flat out judgement. I'm not talking about pounding a gavel and condemning people for their opinions, I'm talking about making a statement that involves a subjectivity implied to the object of disscussion itself rather than simply how you feel about it. I've tried to make this discernment in context of the given arguments, but the point of it gets burried in with the other variables of the argument. Forgive me if I make anlologies and give examples that I have used in other threads, but I would like to isolate this point.
An opinion is "I like it" a judgement is "it is good". Just because you like something does not make the thing you like good. It just means that you like it. An opinion states a belief or feeling about the subject that sits with the speaker. A judgement implies an absolute that sits with the subject itself outside of any individual perspective. "I don't like applesauce" is an opinion. "applesauce is bad." is a judgement. Applesauce isn't good or bad. It's applesauce. Without subjectivity it's mashed apples with sugar and cinnamon. Even if you have extreme reason to hate applesauce, even if applesauce killed your dog, it's still just applesauce. If I like it, it doesn't mean I want to kill your dog. I don't even know your dog.
If there was a sports related thread here, I could get on and say that I'm not into sports, never have been, and explain why. We can disscuss it from there from our own perspectives and have a interesting debate. But If I come on and say "Sports is stupid. I hate jocks, they're all big and dumb." that is a judgement. That means I have decided what sports inherrantly is outside of myself and my opinion. That if I dissapeared from the face of the earth, sports would still be what I have stated it to be. I could even leave it at I hate jocks and it would be my opinion, but going on to claim what all jocks are is a negative judgement and is more inflammatory than it needs to be. Chances are, I wouldn't chime in on a thread about something I didn't like in the first place, much less insinuate that the people on the thread are dumb or missguided.
Stating IMO before a judgment call does not release it from being a judgement any more than saying "excuse me" in a crowded hallway gives one liscense to push someone out of your way. Example, In my opinion, all black people have rythm. In my opinion, French people are all gay. In my opinion, applesauce is a tool of Satan. Statements like that are only inflammatory. "In my opinion, >subject< is bad and holds no redeeming value, is based in something else that is bad, and leads to something else that I have decided is evil." almost always brings about the interpretation that anyone who feels differently about >subject< is wrong and therefore bad too. Even if this is not stated directly, even if it's not an intended subtext of the original statement, it is implied by the absolute put upon >subject< and leaves little room for discussion other than interpreting the statement as an assault upon one's character.
I realize, for the record, the potentially ironic slippery slope of judging judgement, but you'll notice I didn't say judgement is bad, only that it is not the same as opinion and can raise the ire of others. It's not a good tactic for debate and often leaves the speaker looking closed minded and those rebutting looking as though they're hassling someone about their opinions.
But that's just my opinion.

[One Eyed Cat]

I take it you prefer opinion to judgment? My sense is most here recognize the epistemological limitations of the human condition. As such, I would generally recommend taking any "debate" here with a grain of salt.

OEC

[Raza]

I understand your message, but to an extend disagree with your point. Some subjects have an objective reality that sits outside the perspective of the individual attached to them - at least according to the highly popular and scientifically preferred metaphysics and epistemology of naturalism. To argue something that you believe to be one of these as if it were a matter of taste is simply falisity, tactful as it may be.

Also, convictions held in the format you call a judgement are still opinions by the popular sense of the word. Questions to which the answer is structurally subjective, such as the enjoyability of music or the taste of applesauce, I would rather call 'preferences'. Generally, these are easily recognisable by the shared property of relying on variables defined within the psyche of the perceiving individual; this is a useful category to distinguish, but a narrow one that things that do not meet its criteria should not be reduced to.

Either way, I would rather advice that anyone about to get upset with information expressed by another individual considers the futility and irrelevance of this inclination, and refrains from placing further focus on it.

[Morning Glory]

I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.

we can rationally assume that their is such a thing as an objective reality, but it remains confined to purely metaphysical concept and doesn't bear the burden of proof. It's actually a contradiction because it seems to be capable of being disproven by rationalization as well.

all observation is subjective, it's limited only to the awareness and experience of the subject, thus all knowledge is subjective and incapable of being expressed in objective terms. any truly objective viewpoint would be one that was unaware of expression internally, and one that was also unaware of perception externally. in other words it would be unknown to everyone, even to the object itself.

I can rationally conceive of my existence internally and I my existence can be perceived in 4 dimensions externally - we can define the burden of proof in subjective terms. But can you define the reality of an object in terms that are unknown, that come from no subjective point of view?

there is the contradiction. Reality might very well existence in objective terms, but it can't be proven to do so.

All notions or truth, rightness, proof, existence stem from the individual perspective, and just because they are given to the whole by the sum of agreements between individuals, it doesn't negate their essential quality of being or make it arising as an external objective source.

[DoctorZ]

Stoooop eeet, you're making mah head hurt...

=[

[Raza]

I'm going to disagree with your disagreement.

we can rationally assume that their is such a thing as an objective reality, but it remains confined to purely metaphysical concept and doesn't bear the burden of proof. It's actually a contradiction because it seems to be capable of being disproven by rationalization as well.

all observation is subjective, it's limited only to the awareness and experience of the subject, thus all knowledge is subjective and incapable of being expressed in objective terms. any truly objective viewpoint would be one that was unaware of expression internally, and one that was also unaware of perception externally. in other words it would be unknown to everyone, even to the object itself.

I can rationally conceive of my existence internally and I my existence can be perceived in 4 dimensions externally - we can define the burden of proof in subjective terms. But can you define the reality of an object in terms that are unknown, that come from no subjective point of view?

there is the contradiction. Reality might very well existence in objective terms, but it can't be proven to do so.

All notions or truth, rightness, proof, existence stem from the individual perspective, and just because they are given to the whole by the sum of agreements between individuals, it doesn't negate their essential quality of being or make it arising as an external objective source.

I agree with all this, but it's somewhat beside the point. The relevant distinction to make when trying to communicate your views and faced with the choice of formulating them as 'judgement' or 'opinion' by the definitions from the OP isn't whether your view itself is objective - it isn't, by definition - but whether your view proposes an objective. Metaphysical concept is never objective itself, but as you said it can speculate on objectives (and doesn't necessarily need to prove them for this to be sensible behaviour). When you are (subjectively) convinced of the applicability of a theory that utilizes the concept of an objective reality - that, if correct, would be objective because the trait of objectivity is proposed within it - then to voice them in the 'This glass is yellow.' 'judgement' format is merely the sincere expression of that conviction.

In a nutshell, a concept doesn't need to be objective in order to describe an objective; and when it does and we add the assumption that we generally believe what we say, 'judgements' are a perfectly valid format for the expression of opinion.

[Vexbeast]

I prefer judgments over opinions, simply for the fact the internet is full of jackasses who are purposefully ambiguous with their opinions while trying to provoke reactions from people so they can validate themselves by believing others are so close-minded and intolerant of their personal views.

I think it's spineless...

Or rather, it is spineless. <.<

That makes things simpler, yes?

[Morning Glory]

In a nutshell, a concept doesn't need to be objective in order to describe an objective; and when it does and we add the assumption that we generally believe what we say, 'judgements' are a perfectly valid format for the expression of opinion.

I suppose that what I said might have been a little bit out there for a stance on everyday (or in this case, message board) conversations. Nietzsche said "belief is of so little account", but beliefs are really the most important thing.

I think what we need to bring into mention here is what would be called a fact- which is an idea (or an opinion) that is agreed upon and believed by many people and generally recognized as such.

an opinion is an idea or a belief that one person holds and they may hold it in common with other people, but their reckoning of it doesn't stem from it being a fact (at least to their knowledge).

You could say then that a judgment in this case would be for a person to mistakenly (although probably intentionally) assert their opinion as being a fact, when it is not.

Personally, I try to make it clear (and if I don't, let it be known now) that my opinions are just that and anyone is free to disagree with them and I will listen and respond, although you might not like my response. Like Morpheus in The Matrix; when someone states that they don't believe the same thing he does, he responds: My beliefs do not require you to. Although I would add to that: Even if I believe that your's are wrong.

[Raza]

By that definition, the idea that the earth is flat has in the past been a fact. I don't know if that's intentional, but I'm not really inclined to join you in using it. In fact, I don't really like to use the term 'fact' as such a lot, period.

And what you said before was fine and on very much on topic; I just don't think it was what makes the final difference on this issue. I'm not awake enough yet to have much more to add. =)

[episode allah]

e-prime IS boring

[Morning Glory]

but optimus prime is pretty cool.

[Morning Glory]

By that definition, the idea that the earth is flat has in the past been a fact.

Right. A fact isn't necessarily true, and it only seems to be an objective truth in hind sight. The notion that the world is flat was based on above all logical reasoning and the limited capability to actually observe and measure the earth and space in any accurate means. So all that is to say it was the most likely conclusion of the information available. As later information became available they changed their notion of the world.

[DonkeyMoses]

OO, this is a juicey one. I wish I had time to respond, but we have a lot of work this week. I'll save it up.

[Mindgames]

Not the case with your example - I agree that there is a modern (and strained) usage of the word "fact" to mean "what is believed to be true" rather than "what has been shown to be true", but nobody ever presented evidence the world was flat. It was an opinion that people agreed with because it sounded good at the time, but it was nothing more than an opinion. You're getting confused between absence of information and absence of confirmation.

Before we saw the first images of the far side of the moon in 1966, it was generally assumed that it was going to look the same as the front - but it turns out it doesn't. That certainly doesn't mean that in 1965 it was "a fact that both sides are the same". The fact was that nobody knew. What they may have guessed is by the by, and had no effect on the number of craters.

Right. A fact isn't necessarily true, and it only seems to be an objective truth in hind sight. The notion that the world is flat was based on above all logical reasoning and the limited capability to actually observe and measure the earth and space in any accurate means.

[VoltaireBlue]

There have been several threads on this board in which differing opinions have lead to ensueing arguments. Opinions are fine, everybody has them. A little disscussion as to why you hold that opinion and disagree with others is good mental sparing and makes the world that much more interesting. It keeps me on my game. But I think one thing that is lost site of and causes thought provoking debates to become just plain provoking is not having a clear delineation between opinion and flat out judgement. I'm not talking about pounding a gavel and condemning people for their opinions, I'm talking about making a statement that involves a subjectivity implied to the object of disscussion itself rather than simply how you feel about it. I've tried to make this discernment in context of the given arguments, but the point of it gets burried in with the other variables of the argument. Forgive me if I make anlologies and give examples that I have used in other threads, but I would like to isolate this point.
An opinion is "I like it" a judgement is "it is good". Just because you like something does not make the thing you like good. It just means that you like it. An opinion states a belief or feeling about the subject that sits with the speaker. A judgement implies an absolute that sits with the subject itself outside of any individual perspective. "I don't like applesauce" is an opinion. "applesauce is bad." is a judgement. Applesauce isn't good or bad. It's applesauce. Without subjectivity it's mashed apples with sugar and cinnamon. Even if you have extreme reason to hate applesauce, even if applesauce killed your dog, it's still just applesauce. If I like it, it doesn't mean I want to kill your dog. I don't even know your dog.
If there was a sports related thread here, I could get on and say that I'm not into sports, never have been, and explain why. We can disscuss it from there from our own perspectives and have a interesting debate. But If I come on and say "Sports is stupid. I hate jocks, they're all big and dumb." that is a judgement. That means I have decided what sports inherrantly is outside of myself and my opinion. That if I dissapeared from the face of the earth, sports would still be what I have stated it to be. I could even leave it at I hate jocks and it would be my opinion, but going on to claim what all jocks are is a negative judgement and is more inflammatory than it needs to be. Chances are, I wouldn't chime in on a thread about something I didn't like in the first place, much less insinuate that the people on the thread are dumb or missguided.
Stating IMO before a judgment call does not release it from being a judgement any more than saying "excuse me" in a crowded hallway gives one liscense to push someone out of your way. Example, In my opinion, all black people have rythm. In my opinion, French people are all gay. In my opinion, applesauce is a tool of Satan. Statements like that are only inflammatory. "In my opinion, >subject< is bad and holds no redeeming value, is based in something else that is bad, and leads to something else that I have decided is evil." almost always brings about the interpretation that anyone who feels differently about >subject< is wrong and therefore bad too. Even if this is not stated directly, even if it's not an intended subtext of the original statement, it is implied by the absolute put upon >subject< and leaves little room for discussion other than interpreting the statement as an assault upon one's character.
I realize, for the record, the potentially ironic slippery slope of judging judgement, but you'll notice I didn't say judgement is bad, only that it is not the same as opinion and can raise the ire of others. It's not a good tactic for debate and often leaves the speaker looking closed minded and those rebutting looking as though they're hassling someone about their opinions.
But that's just my opinion.

could you please put some spaces between your para graphs? It is very hard to read one big blob of words and stay focused. I'd like to read what you have to say, but the way you write is very hard on my eyes.

[Raza]

Right. A fact isn't necessarily true, and it only seems to be an objective truth in hind sight. The notion that the world is flat was based on above all logical reasoning and the limited capability to actually observe and measure the earth and space in any accurate means. So all that is to say it was the most likely conclusion of the information available. As later information became available they changed their notion of the world.

Hmm, you can define 'fact' however you please, but I disagree that the earth being flat was a logical conclusion based on inadequate information at the time. It suffered from plenty of problems that anyone with half a mind to apply even contemporary physical insights could've spotted, and the solution was one that required imagination more than additional observation.

[Morning Glory]

if it wasn't, then you can you account for the fact that it was generally accepted? that supposes that somehow humanity was less intellectually capable by biology than they are presently.

while the necessity for innovation lies with greater intuitive insight, the general shared cultural concept of knowledge as a building process is also just as true, as it still is now and likely always will be.

[Morning Glory]

If you could have explained Galileo's model to people of an Aristotelian mindset, they would have been able to understand it. But they wouldn't have been able to come up with it on their own without the steps that led to it, because it wasn't a spontaneous realization. If we could predict the course of future knowledge, then we would already be there.

It would seem absurd for a Relativist to say that Newton was an idiot that should have known better, just as a quantum theorist wouldn't say that about Einstein.

[Mindgames]

MG - you seem intent on using "generally accepted" as some kind of argument, but it's not.

People in the Middle Ages "generally" had no opinion either way, or even cared. The small number who did, simply accepted what the church told them. "God made the world in a week, and because of a mix-up in the lumber delivery the world is flat; now shut up and plough that field, you mud-spattered oaf." I guarantee millions of people over the millenia wondered if it might have been a big ol' ball, but they also wondered if they'd get the choice of being burnt, hung or crucified for heresy if they didn't accept the views of their religion; so they kept their mouths shut.

If statistics are all that matters, then the only facts which are "true" are those that the Chinese agree with.

[Raza]

if it wasn't, then you can you account for the fact that it was generally accepted? that supposes that somehow humanity was less intellectually capable by biology than they are presently.

Not by biology so much as culture. The extreme majority of human thought and belief is not creative in nature, but rather a conceptual social osmosis or the ad-hoc rationalization of something we already want to be true. This is true today, but back then there were far fewer 'holes' for an innovative thinker to slip through to establish and affirm their methods in the social aspect of personal growth.

Certainly, you could argue that both social and biological factors limiting humanity's intellectual capacity are among the factors that determine what constitutes a 'logical conclusion by the means available', but by that argument every conclusion a human being ever arived at is necessary a 'logical' one by implication of having been reached at all, leaving the quality of being 'logical' meaningless. What I'm saying is that it wasn't technological means or the availability of information that was lacking, but rather deductive abilities and mindset - 'logic', if you will - itself.

[episode allah]

Bizarrely I agree with both sides.

In my book a fact is only a fact if it has been explained exhaustively to a point of no return. So while I do believe that there are objective facts, I don’t believe that human beings know any (except that there is something). All I see is an increasingly complex dialogue between individual minds and a sustained attempt by animals throughout time to explain what they see around them.

[Morning Glory]

I think that all conclusions are either logical or intuitive, or both. what is called faith is an intuitive belief, not one based on logic.

actually there is a choice of neither one, which is to be absurd, and while some people do base their conclusions on this, I don't think that is the way that thinking is generally (there's that word again) programmed. and such a discrepancy is notable amongst thinkers of the former two categories. we'd call these people crazy.

I think you pretty much summed it up, EA, at least to what I was thinking.

it's funny that you should mention the Chinese, because remember that saying about belief in numbers? A billion Chinese people can't be wrong.

it goes back to what I originally said. If everyone believed something then it would not necessarily make it (objectively) true. but it wouldn't make a difference because we define truth as subjective opinion, even though we pretend that we don't. It only takes two people to make something true, one to believe it and the other to agree with it.

once again, as long as there is one person who believes otherwise, then that is how intellectual (and by extension, technological, sociological, etc. emphasis on logical) innovation persists.

[Raza]

So as long as a conclusion was reached through thought preceding feeling, it's logical?

I suppose that's a fair definition, just not the one I'd use. 'Rational', perhaps.

Pretty much the same conclusion as on the previous point then, anyway.

[Morning Glory]

yeah, I've kinda forgotten what the point of this thread is. other than a pointless debate in semantics.

I blame donkey moses. it's chaooos

[DonkeyMoses]

I understand your message, but to an extend disagree with your point. Some subjects have an objective reality that sits outside the perspective of the individual attached to them

That kind of was my point. More or less, I see all things having an objective reality that sits outside the perspective of the individual attached to them. What I was eschewing is the assumption of a subjective reality that sits outside the perspective of the individual attached to them.

Also, convictions held in the format you call a judgement are still opinions by the popular sense of the word. Questions to which the answer is structurally subjective, such as the enjoyability of music or the taste of applesauce, I would rather call 'preferences'.

Ok, so for the sake of semantics we can separate "opinion" into the catagories of "personal prefference" and "outstanding judgement".

Either way, I would rather advice that anyone about to get upset with information expressed by another individual considers the futility and irrelevance of this inclination, and refrains from placing further focus on it.

Agreed. Sharing of perspective in conversation or debate can be good mental sparring, but we would all do best, myself included, to keep self-righteous indignation to a dull roar.

[DonkeyMoses]

then to voice them in the 'This glass is yellow.' 'judgement' format is merely the sincere expression of that conviction.
.

Dig. But more to the point, "this glass is yellow" is a statement of fact (boldly by definition and irregardless of the metaphysical existence of "fact" and whether or not you can prove that yellow even exists ) and not a representation of how you pecieve yellow. That would be the "prefference". The delineation here between that and a judgement would be if you believe and imply that persective to be within your subjectivity or a property that exists within the object itself, rendering other opinions moot. yes, I am aware of the "fact" that both are in the realm of opinion, main difference being how much credit you give to the rest of reality for having its own perspective.

[DonkeyMoses]

yeah, I've kinda forgotten what the point of this thread is. other than a pointless debate in semantics.

I blame donkey moses. it's chaooos

I blame the Canadians.

[DonkeyMoses]

Not by biology so much as culture. The extreme majority of human thought and belief is not creative in nature, but rather a conceptual social osmosis or the ad-hoc rationalization of something we already want to be true. This is true today, but back then there were far fewer 'holes' for an innovative thinker to slip through to establish and affirm their methods in the social aspect of personal growth.

Certainly, you could argue that both social and biological factors limiting humanity's intellectual capacity are among the factors that determine what constitutes a 'logical conclusion by the means available', but by that argument every conclusion a human being ever arived at is necessary a 'logical' one by implication of having been reached at all, leaving the quality of being 'logical' meaningless. What I'm saying is that it wasn't technological means or the availability of information that was lacking, but rather deductive abilities and mindset - 'logic', if you will - itself.

I see a combination of both. The more the human brain learns, the more capable it becomes of learning more. It learns how to learn. The more each generation comes up with, the more it has to teach the next one, and the farther the next one can take it, and the biological aspect increases it's general capabitlity to understand. One person's lifetime of study becomes the next person's lessons within their lifetime of study. I feel as though the brain is capable of comprehending concepts that cultures in the past would lack the physical ability to understand even if you explained it to them in the simplest of terms.

[DonkeyMoses]

an opinion is an idea or a belief that one person holds and they may hold it in common with other people, but their reckoning of it doesn't stem from it being a fact (at least to their knowledge).

You could say then that a judgment in this case would be for a person to mistakenly (although probably intentionally) assert their opinion as being a fact, when it is not.

That's it in a nutshell. That was the basic point of this thread. And it is chaos.

[DonkeyMoses]

actually there is a choice of neither one, which is to be absurd, and while some people do base their conclusions on this, I don't think that is the way that thinking is generally (there's that word again) programmed. and such a discrepancy is notable amongst thinkers of the former two categories. we'd call these people crazy.

In the Land of the Blind, the One Eyed Man is insane.

I didn't want to get into this, but you've forced my hand.
As far as proven fact, I can't prove that anything (or any of you, for that matter) even exists at all. It could all be a construct for all I know, but having percieved evidence all around me, I'm willing to go with it. Sure. Here we are.

I guess you could say the following long-winded overly analytical post is, for me, an intuitive fact. It is not based in any concrete confimation of anything other than conclusions drawn from observation of the mechanics of social perceptive reality. And if it wasn't for observation, we wouldn't notice anything.

That said, I don't see reality as one cohesive existence or awareness. There are billions of realities. They all share one physical, objective reality where they all exist, sitting there blinking at each other. This is the land of fact, where a table is made of wood, a glass is yellow, and applesauce is mashed apples with sugar and cinnamon. Whether or not we all see yellow as the same color, we have agreed to call that color yellow.

I'm a visual thinker. I'll put it in easily imaginable metaphoric imagery. Imagine a big metal tray full of, oh, we'll say eyeballs. This tray is the objective plane on which they all exist and communicate and exchange juices (see favorite artistic medium thread for a treatise on juice). These eyeballs represent individual realities that exist intrinsically unto themselves with their own ideas and perspectives. If we can zoom the camera in to one individual eyeball, doesn't matter which one, and get inside of it, there is a subjective reality. Full of opinions and feelings, and a general over-all perspective, this reality is reality. It is the center of the universe because it is cognizant. Because infinity goes outward in all directions from there. This individual perspective is truth and given validity by default of its existance. You can't argue with it. It is maleable, but immuteable.

Now we'll zoom back out to show the tray once again. Nothing has changed noting the perspective of the subjective except for the movement of the eyballs. (you can't keep 'em still, the slippery little buggers).
Somewhere in this tray you can find a subjective that is completely the opposite of the first one we observed. Found it? Ok, let's zoom in again to that one. Once again, we find a wholely thruthable perspective, carrying feelings and beliefs equally valid and true as the first one, though diametrically opposed and contradictory. Neither one is wrong, thus both are right.

So, in summary, on the Objective Plane, nothing is anything, it just is.

In the Subjective Perspective, everything is something.

On the Objective Subjective Plane, the coalessence of all perspectives as aknowledged equally and objectively, everything is everything.

All opposites are true and conjuncted by the connection of the Objective Plane. Really there are no true opposites without this conection. There would be no dark if it was all dark. It would just be. I'm told the indiginous people of Australia have no word for sharing because it's a given way of life. You have, you share, just how it is. There's no opposite. That could be bullshit, I don't speak aboriginee, but a good example none the less.

With this in mind, the eyeballs tend to gravtitate toward like eyeballs. The more like eyeballs that find each other, the more they form a culture of perspectives that can at least be communicated and described in words and actions to be sharing a common similarity. Subcultures (only because they're smaller and function within a larger society) share uncommon similarities. These shared variables are often missconstrued to be a truth of reality by proximity. The more a variable is "generally accepted" by those over in that corner of the tray, the further it slides into a percieved "fact" or ingrained part of the Collective Subjective so as to be not even thought about or conciously realized, just accepted as a given.

Another part of the tray might adhere to things differently. The realities there might have no idea what you're talking about (or sometimes even what you're talking about is about) and, therefore, reject it as insane, or heresy, or just plain wrong. If you take a polaroid of a tribesman somewhere who has never seen such technology, you could be revered as a god or slain as a witch. It would depend on what is "generally accepted" on that section of the tray.

One eyeball who sees differently from the majority is often cast out of that part of the tray, or a least set apart from the others within it. Maybe they move to another place where they find thier ill-fitting perspective to be a common similarity with others, maybe they stick around to argue it out, maybe they start believing the ones who tell them that they're crazy because no one else thinks this way. Sometimes it changes around them by the uncommon similarities gaining in number with a new generation untill they become common. This is the evolution of social persceptive reality. So quantitative comparison to other realities doesn't dictate right or wrong, only what's socially acceptable or not.

It's all a conjunction of opposites. Any given thing in any place or time can only be rgarded as contrary to its opposite, which is, in turn, equally and adversely proportioned to itself.
But, again, this is only the way I see the world.

[Morning Glory]

good point. I'm still contemplating a tray full of eyeballs though.

I think this site has first of all people that have mostly similar interests and mostly people of mild temperament, which means that we all get along pretty well, compared to sites of starkly varied types of people that are of extreme viewpoints.

I guess it really boils down to just don't act like a jerk and people will be cool with you. even if you do act like a jerk from time to time, you will still most likely be forgiven as long as you aren't consistently an ass.

[DonkeyMoses]

Preeeeecisely. Here we all are on this particular section of the tray, able to even have this conversation and understand that we understand each other, whether we understand each other or not. It's simply a matter of not being rude in how one weilds one's perspective. You can do a little dance with it, or you can wave it around carelessly and smack everybody with it.

[Raza]

Smacking people from time to time and generally being obnoxious an twat can be a lot of fun though. I still say the proper solution, if a problem can be said to exist at all, is for people to let nothing get to them. It serves no purpose anyway, and that way people can act however they please.

Besides, no amount of good intention can rule out hurtful miscommunication, but aquired emotional immunity to information in general can render it harmless.

[Morning Glory]

immunity, or apathy?

[Raza]

If getting upset is the 'damage' we're measuring, consistent apathy equals immunity.

[DonkeyMoses]

Sure, grow a thicker skin. not apathy so much as detatchment from ego. Not removal of, but detatchment from.
Anyway the 'damage' is intrinsic. If you decide what something IS definitively, you've removed for yourself the possibility of other variables that you hadn't considered and will not learn anything new on the issue.

[helcyon]

blah-de-blah

I type therefore I am... and I can't type

[OrganizedKhaos]

HELLY!!!! Its so good to see you.

[helcyon]

HELLY!!!! Its so good to see you.

No no... how good it is to see YOU ice blue eyes frozen in time. I don't always get carried away with stunning fotos but... hang on yes I do... but anyway... I know you are a fotographess and all but geez... I will develop a crush if not on you then definitely on your pic

[DonkeyMoses]

I type therefore I am... and I can't type

I think, therefore I type. And I type a lot.