- Dec 19, 2004
- Reaction score
Saint said:My point was that the active role of the other person making the argument is what results in the change.
But there is still a REASON you think this, and that's what I'm asking for: reason.
SHH Posters stomping around screaming "The suit is fine! it's my opinion and I have a right to it therefore you're all wrong and stupid and in denial!" is not a reason. It's nothing: it's a load of crap.
Opinions are supported by evidence; it's just that simple. Well, rather they SHOULD be, and often are. If it doesn't boil down to factual data eventually, it holds no weight. This is the error I see often on these forums. People who argue that because they like something, it must be the best, universally, and that anyone who says different is stupid, lying, or in denial. This is chiefly the mode of though I try to prevent. That is what I mean by being unreasonable. When someone argues something, they need to support their argument with something besides the fact that they "like it."
It would probably be more accurate to say my problem is with unreasonable arguments.
There is nothing unreasonable about arguing. The fact of the matter is that the only thing I've identified as "unreasonable" is pretending that your likes or dislikes dictate what is right or wrong, better or worse universally.
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
If I enter into a debate with the goal of strictly changing the viewpoint of my opponent, it is still a debate.
I also do not concede that someone has to be "impartial" to consider new evidence and change their mind about something. It certainly makes the process easier, though.
I already addressed that above. But if you do want to get right down to it, I suppose it does end up being a loop. For example: Pre-Miller Batman is the proper interpretation of Batman (This does not represent my actual thoughts on the matter; it's just an example). Why? Because that material is greater in number than post-Miller Batman material. This would be based upon my secondary opinion that a larger amount of material constitutes the right interpretation of Batman and so on. So I suppose you're correct in that regard.
I'm beginning to see your point, but I would contend that a debate is little more than presenting arguments (Such as those found in a pamphlet), allowing the other person to present, then presenting a counter. Even an attempt to debunk an argument still boils down to a presentation of evidence in an attempt to perform the debunking.
Whoever suggested we stop arguing? All I suggest is injecting a little reason into the debate, so we don't have people supporting their opinions with the fact that they're opinions, but instead people supporting their opinions with actual reasons (Which is to say reasons that extend beyond their own preferences).
You see, my problem with the posts I originally quoted in this thread (about Batman Begins) was that they made flat-out statements without even the slightest effort to qualify those statements with any actual reasons. It was simple "Batman Begins is awesome" opposed to "No it's not." That's crap. That goes nowhere. That's just two people pretending their statements are fact, with no reasoning behind them.
I am going to let this stand, with the qualifier, once again, that "evidence" supporting opinion, as you agreed, is circular in nature, because any "evidence" is based on value judgement as well. While confrontation is never pretty, it is entertaining, which is why it happens so often around here. This is, like I said, nothing more than entertainment. If you wanted to be educated about superheroes and such, there are far better places to do it. Many books have been written about them.
However, since any opinion backed up with qualifiers like "Batman Begins is the best movie because it accurately portrays Batman from the comics" presents a giant cesspool of subjective opinion. Why is it accurate? What comics time period? Why is that the definitive Batman? The answer, ultimately and always, boils down to "because I like it." Never any other reason. So what's the point of using all that evidence when it will always boil down to the same ultimate qualifier? "Batman Begins is awesome because I like it." That's the only statement that is honest and accurate. And that is something that is not debateable. Not without lots of unreasonable argument.
The same is true with this movie, so far, or any artistic exercise. You either like it - or you don't. Providing qualifiers and "evidence" is merely supporting your opinion with further opinion. And if somebody changes their mind and agrees with your opinion, it is because they have either realized that they liked it all along, or have been converted by whatever means. But their opinion has changed, and there is no objective reason why.