[DerbyX]

Quote:

However you ongoing idea that opnion is proof is and remains the ciritical error in your thinking. An opnion may be proved but it requires evidence, None of which you provided rises to the the level of proof except in what you freely admit is arbritraty.

You continue to present the same flawed reasoning. You don't need to "prove" your opinion when its subjective.

In my opinion beer tastes great, Corner Gas is funny, and anchovies taste awful.

None of them require me to prove.

The only "proof" the medal required was that which was stated.

In my opinion the quotes I used provided the proof required by the medal conditions.

I don't need to prove that in my opinion said quotes were evidence that poster has many negative posts about Canada.

Thats my opinion. Yours may differ just as you might not like beer or Corner Gas. Neither of us need to "prove" our opinions.

In my opinion his quotes were evidence just as somebody writing down in their journal "I hate that bastard, (insert name), I'm going to kill him tommorow" can be used as evidence of intent to murder.

In both cases the judge/mod/jury uses their opinion in deciding if they agree with me.

For the record I actually qualified my opinion with "anyone making such derogatory posts against entire provinces constitutes as making negative posts about Canada and/or are the actions of someone I define as an Anti-Canuck. Other people agreed with me.

I don't need to use your defn of Anti-canuck or provide "proof" anymore then I need to provide proof about the foods I like.

I reject your definition that "anti-Canuck" isn't subjective. You cannot prove that it is because its only your opinion that it isn't subjective.

It is subjective. What you think makes a person "Anti-Canadian" differes from mine. You keep insisting that the definition of an "Anti-Canuck" is someone who has broken Canadian law and/or her hate speech laws.

That is only your opinion and it isn't shared by everyone (or possibly anyone).

You can't "prove" your defn of Anti-Canuck is correct any more then you could prove your opinion that (insert song) sucks.

All I needed to "prove" for BDPB to get the medal was to provide (using posts) that "poster has many negative posts about Canada.

In your opinion my "evidence" wasn't conclusive proof because it didn't fit your personal opinion of what an "Anti-Canuck post is.

That is just your opinion. Can you prove it?

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

Quote:

However you ongoing idea that opnion is proof is and remains the ciritical error in your thinking. An opnion may be proved but it requires evidence, None of which you provided rises to the the level of proof except in what you freely admit is arbritraty.

You continue to present the same flawed reasoning. You don't need to "prove" your opinion when its subjective.

In my opinion beer tastes great, Corner Gas is funny, and anchovies taste awful.

None of them require me to prove.

The only "proof" the medal required was that which was stated.

In my opinion the quotes I used provided the proof required by the medal conditions.

I don't need to prove that in my opinion said quotes were evidence that poster has many negative posts about Canada.

Thats my opinion. Yours may differ just as you might not like beer or Corner Gas. Neither of us need to "prove" our opinions.

In my opinion his quotes were evidence just as somebody writing down in their journal "I hate that bastard, (insert name), I'm going to kill him tommorow" can be used as evidence of intent to murder.

In both cases the judge/mod/jury uses their opinion in deciding if they agree with me.

For the record I actually qualified my opinion with "anyone making such derogatory posts against entire provinces constitutes as making negative posts about Canada and/or are the actions of someone I define as an Anti-Canuck. Other people agreed with me.

I don't need to use your defn of Anti-canuck or provide "proof" anymore then I need to provide proof about the foods I like.

I reject your definition that "anti-Canuck" isn't subjective. You cannot prove that it is because its only your opinion that it isn't subjective.

It is subjective. What you think makes a person "Anti-Canadian" differes from mine. You keep insisting that the definition of an "Anti-Canuck" is someone who has broken Canadian law and/or her hate speech laws.

That is only your opinion and it isn't shared by everyone (or possibly anyone).

You can't "prove" your defn of Anti-Canuck is correct any more then you could prove your opinion that (insert song) sucks.

All I needed to "prove" for BDPB to get the medal was to provide (using posts) that "poster has many negative posts about Canada.

In your opinion my "evidence" wasn't conclusive proof because it didn't fit your personal opinion of what an "Anti-Canuck post is.

That is just your opinion. Can you prove it?

Look all were doing here is that neither You or I are convinced of each others arguments, nor do i think we will. We're going round and round the same essential point, you believe one thing to be right - i believe another thing to be right.

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Look all were doing here is that neither You or I are convinced of each others arguments, nor do i think we will. We're going round and round the same essential point, you believe one thing to be right - i believe another thing to be right.

My arguement is verified by the forum. Yours isn't.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Look all were doing here is that neither You or I are convinced of each others arguments, nor do i think we will. We're going round and round the same essential point, you believe one thing to be right - i believe another thing to be right.

My arguement is verified by the forum. Yours isn't.

You know what, im perfectly happy to live and let live. but i think you have this desire to go on and on about things that have become irrelevant. You want to win in your own mind - feel free my dear friend.

I was looking for a good and for a argument and for a while it was,and as i said you believe what you believe, and i believe what i believe. I still believe that i was correct , and so do you.

Now then do you want the two of us to round and round again?

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Look all were doing here is that neither You or I are convinced of each others arguments, nor do i think we will. We're going round and round the same essential point, you believe one thing to be right - i believe another thing to be right.

My arguement is verified by the forum. Yours isn't.

You know what, im perfectly happy to live and let live. but i think you have this desire to go on and on about things that have become irrelevant. You want to win in your own mind - feel free my dear friend.

I was looking for a good and for a argument and for a while it was,and as i said you believe what you believe, and i believe what i believe. I still believe that i was correct , and so do you.

Now then do you want the two of us to round and round again?

Go right ahead. My argument was flawless.