JQuest wrote:
It's the internet, most people believe that it was invented for porn, but it was really invented so that random people who have never met each other, will never meet each other and have virtually no impact on each others existence can argue with each other. I know that's true because I learned right here, on the internets!

This!

JQuest wrote:
It's the internet, most people believe that it was invented for porn, but it was really invented so that random people who have never met each other, will never meet each other and have virtually no impact on each others existence can argue with each other. I know that's true because I learned right here, on the internets!

somebody read pussy wrong.
internet was made for kittens pictures

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Why is it that whenever a topic comes up where someone's opinion matters (to them and not necessarily to every or even anyone else), almost invariably someone will pull out charts, graphs and/or statistics to "prove" this person's opinion is wrong?  When they decide that the charts and things are great but they're staying with their original decision, they're wrong and an idiot for "ignoring the facts". Someone will accuse them of trolling. Someone else will say they shouldn't ask questions if they are just going to tell everyone else they're wrong (even if they've never said anyone was wrong, they're just not going with what is currently popular).

Do you have a clue as to why a group of people would act this way? I don't have one.

For example?

Jules NYC wrote:
http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/Ho … _large.jpg

For you Wye

I do love photos of the night sky.  Thanks!


Though I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.  Care to clarify?

Wye wrote:

I do love photos of the night sky.  Thanks!


Though I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.  Care to clarify?

Almost looked like yellow polka-dots

Jules NYC wrote:

Almost looked like yellow polka-dots

I think you may need to look at more pictures of polka dots….

Wye wrote:

I think you may need to look at more pictures of polka dots….

I know that they look like

Jules NYC wrote:

I know that they look like

Dare I point out that those are... well.. black polka dots?

Wye wrote:

Dare I point out that those are... well.. black polka dots?

Yes, that's why it's so funny!

Technically it is this:

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Why is it that whenever a topic comes up where someone's opinion matters (to them and not necessarily to every or even anyone else), almost invariably someone will pull out charts, graphs and/or statistics to "prove" this person's opinion is wrong?  When they decide that the charts and things are great but they're staying with their original decision, they're wrong and an idiot for "ignoring the facts".

I have a few theories:

1)  Many people confuse an opinion with a fact.  A "fact" needs to be able to withstand scientific scrutiny, and an "opinion" is simply a personal preference.  For example:  a typical summer day's sky appears to be blue is a fact that can be verified with measurements.  On the other hand, my favorite color might be blue, and that's an opinion, and if someone else chooses another color, that's okay -- that would be their opinion.  Unfortunately, many people represent their opinion or an unproven hypothesis as a "fact", and that causes problems.

2)  People naturally resent it when their "facts" are challenged, especially if they can't prove their facts with scientific rigor.  In my opinion, facts should be challenged and should be able to survive the challenges.

3)  So-called "trusted" newscasters (and even some entire news networks) have been known to present fiction as if they were facts (i.e. they make crap up and report it).  All that effort to prove facts is not important, because opinion is more important than facts.

4)  Lots of people think they know science, but few people can separate "science" from "bad science".  A Rough Guide To Spotting Bad Science.

KungPaoChic wrote:
There is opinion and there is fact.

If you want to believe the world is flat, there may some people that can supply proof that the world is not flat.

Of course you are still entitled to believe the world is flat . . .

If you so firmly believe something and you have already made up your mind, why entertain other people's opinions or facts -- and why would you care what they thought anyways?

In the case in question, I asked a specific question. As usual and to be expected, the resulting replies drifted off the immediate topic I wanted to discuss and into other areas that are/were related but not exactly the same. I stated my opinion on things now being discussed and out comes the chart and statistics quoters to "prove" to me that I'm "wrong". Since it is/was just my personal opinion and I wasn't trying to convince anyone to do what I do, I didn't think it was that big a deal but that brought out the name callers who tell me I'm an idiot for "ignoring the facts".

The truth is I wasn't ignoring the facts. I was just treating the facts in a way that "wasn't popular" in making my decision(s). No where did I say anyone was wrong or stupid/an idiot. The only reason why I care one iota is because it would be nice to be able to have a peaceful discussion of things sometimes where opinions vary and sometimes wildly.  I had a discussion on another website a few week ago about a particular subject. There were 3 main participants and a few other chimers from time to time.  All 3 of us had our own opinions on the subject. Some were slightly different where others were wildly different. At no point did the names stupid, idiot, ignorant or anything else that generally carries a negative connotation enter into the discussion.

The problem, IMO, isn't the stating of an opinion or opposing viewpoints to said opinion. The problem is the name calling and other behaviors where someone just "has to be right" and everyone else has to "submit to their opinions/facts" even if it's all a matter of personal opinion and doesn't really have an effect on anyone else.  Just to be clear, the subject at hand wasn't the building of nuclear weapons or opening a toxic waste dump in a residential area.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

In the case in question, I asked a specific question. As usual and to be expected, the resulting replies drifted off the immediate topic I wanted to discuss and into other areas that are/were related but not exactly the same. I stated my opinion on things now being discussed and out comes the chart and statistics quoters to "prove" to me that I'm "wrong". Since it is/was just my personal opinion and I wasn't trying to convince anyone to do what I do, I didn't think it was that big a deal but that brought out the name callers who tell me I'm an idiot for "ignoring the facts".

The truth is I wasn't ignoring the facts. I was just treating the facts in a way that "wasn't popular" in making my decision(s). No where did I say anyone was wrong or stupid/an idiot. The only reason why I care one iota is because it would be nice to be able to have a peaceful discussion of things sometimes where opinions vary and sometimes wildly.  I had a discussion on another website a few week ago about a particular subject. There were 3 main participants and a few other chimers from time to time.  All 3 of us had our own opinions on the subject. Some were slightly different where others were wildly different. At no point did the names stupid, idiot, ignorant or anything else that generally carries a negative connotation enter into the discussion.

The problem, IMO, isn't the stating of an opinion or opposing viewpoints to said opinion. The problem is the name calling and other behaviors where someone just "has to be right" and everyone else has to "submit to their opinions/facts" even if it's all a matter of personal opinion and doesn't really have an effect on anyone else.  Just to be clear, the subject at hand wasn't the building of nuclear weapons or opening a toxic waste dump in a residential area.

You're free to think anything about any matter you like.  You're free to say anything you'd like about any matter.  But you're not free to actually be right about things that you're demonstrably wrong about.

One can say (and honestly believe with all of their conviction) that the earth is flat or that humans never went to the moon or that the earth is only 6000-ish year old.. they have the right to those beliefs.. but they don't have the right to the facts.. their beliefs are flat out wrong.. plain, simple and clear.  If they insist that their beliefs are true then I will think them an idiot.. and depending on the person I'll probably call them that to their face.

On the other hand if I say that I prefer the taste of medium well beef to medium rare or that to me chicken mcnuggets taste better than roast chicken on rice and someone says "no. you're wrong.. Medium rare beef tastes better and everyone knows that mcnuggets taste like shit" then I will also think *them* an idiot and probably tell them so to their face.


Simple as that.

Wye wrote:
When someone says the sky is plaid with a hint of yellow polkadots or that because gravity is only a theory one might just survive jumping out a plane at 30,000 feet without so much as a handkerchief to slow them down well.. sometimes it's a good idea to help disabuse them (and, more importantly, others who may believe them) of such silly notions.

That's my job.  I must keep everyone straight.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

In the case in question, I asked a specific question. As usual and to be expected, the resulting replies drifted off the immediate topic I wanted to discuss and into other areas that are/were related but not exactly the same. I stated my opinion on things now being discussed and out comes the chart and statistics quoters to "prove" to me that I'm "wrong". Since it is/was just my personal opinion and I wasn't trying to convince anyone to do what I do, I didn't think it was that big a deal but that brought out the name callers who tell me I'm an idiot for "ignoring the facts".

The truth is I wasn't ignoring the facts. I was just treating the facts in a way that "wasn't popular" in making my decision(s). No where did I say anyone was wrong or stupid/an idiot. The only reason why I care one iota is because it would be nice to be able to have a peaceful discussion of things sometimes where opinions vary and sometimes wildly.  I had a discussion on another website a few week ago about a particular subject. There were 3 main participants and a few other chimers from time to time.  All 3 of us had our own opinions on the subject. Some were slightly different where others were wildly different. At no point did the names stupid, idiot, ignorant or anything else that generally carries a negative connotation enter into the discussion.

The problem, IMO, isn't the stating of an opinion or opposing viewpoints to said opinion. The problem is the name calling and other behaviors where someone just "has to be right" and everyone else has to "submit to their opinions/facts" even if it's all a matter of personal opinion and doesn't really have an effect on anyone else.  Just to be clear, the subject at hand wasn't the building of nuclear weapons or opening a toxic waste dump in a residential area.

Maybe the root of the problem is that you believe facts can be treated in a popular or unpopular way.

Some people think facts are facts.

Other people confuse opinions with facts.

Sadly, some people, that treat facts as facts, may feel other people, that confuse opinions with facts, are ignorant or foolish.

Fortunately, if I followed your statement, above, correctly, nobody was called an idiot or ignorant, etc., but you sure wish they would not.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Why is it that whenever a topic comes up where someone's opinion matters (to them and not necessarily to every or even anyone else), almost invariably someone will pull out charts, graphs and/or statistics to "prove" this person's opinion is wrong?

Because there are a lot of people with really questionable opinions. At some point, actual data can be useful to point out precisely why a certain opinion is so questionable.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
When they decide that the charts and things are great but they're staying with their original decision, they're wrong and an idiot for "ignoring the facts". Someone will accuse them of trolling. Someone else will say they shouldn't ask questions if they are just going to tell everyone else they're wrong (even if they've never said anyone was wrong, they're just not going with what is currently popular).

It guess it depends. Does that one person insist on rephrasing the same questionable opinion over and over and over despite several different people pointing out from several different angles how that questionable opinion is simply not standing up to scrutiny at all? Has that person done the same exact thing regarding other subject matter? Because if so, you really have to wonder about that one person.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
Do you have a clue as to why a group of people would act this way? I don't have one.

I have no idea why a person would go on and on endlessly rephrasing the same questionable opinion, especially when they first time they expressed it and the hundredth time they expressed it are equally questionable.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Actually, you did not post a specific question.  You posted a general question with generalizations about how people respond to you.

You have expressed that people have not addressed your question but have gone of in a myriad number of directions.  From reading the responses, I would conclude that they have been consistent in direction and offering a variety of explanation.  Perhaps what you are really saying, is that if people don't respond as you expect them to, then there opinions are wrong.  Hmm.  Sounds familiar.

You may also want to consider that the responses you got are also the ones that you are looking for.  Since you say that people have responded as you expected; would that not be due to the phrasing of your original post?  In court, lawyers don't ask you for the truth.  They guide you to get the answers that bolster their case.  If a person expects to be treated in a certain matter, they can usually manipulate people to treat them as such wether they are conscious of it or not.  Did you post this thread to start another controversy or to engage in conversation?  You could have engaged in conversation by asking people about their favorite ski places and the conditions that are available.  As an example.

I have not seen anybody hurl an insult at you in this thread.  I interpret some of the response to be from frustration, since this is more of the same.   You have, essentially, started a thread to defend your behavior and to criticize how other people treat you.  If you disagree, reread your original post.  And, you seem to remain frustrated over previous threads. I read a reply to one of your post this morning, in a different thread, that was very well articulated, and came from her experience and a point of view that would, or should, cause one to ponder.  Are you offended by that?  Is self reflection and evaluation a negative?

I am in a profession that often requires me to stand and be confronted.  I explain to the person what I do and why.  I have explained it thousands of times.  It does not matter.  That person has never had it explained to them.  I have to be open and available to listen.  If not, I am not going to be unable to complete my work because they do have the power to interfere.  Occasionally, I have to talk to a real shit head.  When I walk away, I ask my employee how I could have handle the situation better.  He tells me.  Not that I can overcome the shit head, ever.  If I am not open to evaluating my mistakes, I am going to repeat them.  If I don't confront the people that abuse me, they are going to continue to abuse me.  Do youy, objectively, review how you talk to other people in the forums?

May I remind you, you are not obligated to continue to participate in this thread if you do not like the responses you get.  But you asked for responses and you don't get to define how people respond.

I wasn't talking specifically about this thread and I've already said that thread drift is normal and expected. I didn't realize I was a lawyer and participating in court here. That's my fault.

In the example I gave above, someone might say that I'm proselytizing people who would normally buy Ford and trying to convince them to buy Chevy. That isn't my intent, though. I couldn't care less if a person buys Ford, Chevy or any other cars. I own no stock in any of these companies so I am therefore not going to make a dime if any of them do well or completely fail. One can say I have no facts to support my Chevy buying, but there is only one thing necessary: money. I don't need to "prove" Chevy makes better cars to buy one. I only need to buy it and that's only if I wanted to do that, anyway.  I didn't even say Ford makes terrible cars. I said I prefer Chevy.  For me, "I'm buying Chevy" doesn't equate to "anyone who buys a Ford is wrong". 

I do understand that a person sees what they want to see and filters things through whatever filters they see fit. I'm okay with that.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

I wasn't talking specifically about this thread and I've already said that thread drift is normal and expected. I didn't realize I was a lawyer and participating in court here. That's my fault.

In the example I gave above, someone might say that I'm proselytizing people who would normally buy Ford and trying to convince them to buy Chevy. That isn't my intent, though. I couldn't care less if a person buys Ford, Chevy or any other cars. I own no stock in any of these companies so I am therefore not going to make a dime if any of them do well or completely fail. One can say I have no facts to support my Chevy buying, but there is only one thing necessary: money. I don't need to "prove" Chevy makes better cars to buy one. I only need to buy it and that's only if I wanted to do that, anyway.  I didn't even say Ford makes terrible cars. I said I prefer Chevy.  For me, "I'm buying Chevy" doesn't equate to "anyone who buys a Ford is wrong". 

I do understand that a person sees what they want to see and filters things through whatever filters they see fit. I'm okay with that.

I hear what you are saying. Why do people need to test or argue over opinions. 
That's why Soapbox is closed.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Many times I spend a considerable amount of effort typing a post.  Composing, correcting, editing.   Before I post, I ask myself, "Do I want to defend this?  Do I want the fall out I am going to get from this?  Will this make me look like an ass?  Is this funny or insulting?  Can I support my facts?"  If I answer, "No, no, yes, insulting, no", I will delete the post or live with the consequences.  I know how it is here.  I am not going to change it because I am different from other people.  If I am different from other people.

What if you're about to post that you prefer Chevy over Ford so there is nothing to defend (it's your money and your preference that has no bearing on anyone else so it shouldn't matter) and since there is nothing to defend, there should be no fall out.  I don't see how saying one would buy a Chevy would make anyone look like an ass. It's not funny or insulting unless there is someone in the house who owns or builds Fords, but since you're not the only Chevy buyer in the world ... and what fact is there to support besides these are the cars you prefer? Do you need facts to support your purchase?  Do you need facts to support any opinion on anything that has nothing to do with anyone else?

It could all come down to you think Chevy has a better ride quality than any other car maker. I don't know how to measure that (there might be an algebraic expression I didn't learn, though) but for me, there doesn't need to be a scientific evaluation/measurable reason.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Many times I spend a considerable amount of effort typing a post.  Composing, correcting, editing.   Before I post, I ask myself, "Do I want to defend this?  Do I want the fall out I am going to get from this?  Will this make me look like an ass?  Is this funny or insulting?  Can I support my facts?"  If I answer, "No, no, yes, insulting, no", I will delete the post or live with the consequences.  I know how it is here.  I am not going to change it because I am different from other people.  If I am different from other people.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
What if you're about to post that you prefer Chevy over Ford so there is nothing to defend (it's your money and your preference that has no bearing on anyone else so it shouldn't matter) and since there is nothing to defend, there should be no fall out. .

If there is nothing to defend and no fall out, then why would someone continue to argue about it? It takes two to tango. People like to pretend that they don't like to argue or that there's no point in arguing but whenever they are contradicted in even the slightest manner they reveal themselves as doggedly argumentative. It may seem like there's a lot more argumentation these days than ever before, but that's just because internet provides myriad opportunities for people to argue about anything. Also, internet provides access to all sorts of readily-available data that can be used to support someone's position (or argue against someone else's position). I wouldn't sweat about it too much. It's not a big deal unless the matter involves doing something harmful to themselves or others.

Koryn wrote:
You shouldn't put your opinion out on most websites, unless you're ready to step up to the plate and defend your position when people put you to the test.

This is the nature of communication and discussion - regardless of the medium used.

I 100% agree with you... when there is a position to defend. In the case of one's opinion where it has little to do with anyone else and much to do with one's own personal comfort and/or peace of mind, I don't think calling a person idiot or accusing them of ignoring the facts is conducive to a good discussion. I'm asking here why it is that some people can't leave a person's opinion alone without the name calling, belittling, etc and all because they disagree with the "facts" in as much as they're not going to rush out and do something. This is especially true since some of the people calling others idiot and the like aren't rushing out to do this exact thing, either.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
I'll give you an example: Someone asks if GM cars still use Delco/Bose radios.  The conversation drifts into who makes better cars.  The person who asked about the radios now says they are going car shopping soon and since they like the way GM does things, they are going to look at a Chevy first and will likely buy one.  Someone else on the forum comes along and says they should buy Ford because Fords are better.  The first person says Fords are nice, but they like Chevy better. Now the 2nd person comes back with stats and links that say 84% of Ford owners would buy another one 15 years later, Ford owners have spent an average of $5000 in 10 years repairing or maintaining their cars where Chevy owners have spent $8,000 over the same period and Ford cars use bigger tires than their Chevy competition so the tires will last longer.

The person says ... that may all be true, but I still like Chevy so that's what I'm going to buy. Now the idiots, stupids, ignorants, ignoring the facts, etc etc comes out because the stats clearly show that Ford is better and anyone who doesn't buy Ford is definitely an idiot.

Well ... 2 things come to mind: first, no matter what car a person chooses to buy or drive, it has zero to do with anyone else, especially if no one else is being asked to pay for said car. Second, there is such a thing as an intangible that can't be accounted for in the stats. For instance, if a person has a lot more experience working on Chevy cars themselves, Fords may seem foreign so they aren't as easily repaired or maintained in a person's opinion.  Yes, this is not a fact but an opinion. If a person is spending their own money to buy and drive this car, it is only their opinion that matters, especially if it has zero effect on anyone else.

Your example is one of preference.. there's no right or wrong in preference.  Some people like chevys.. some like ford.. some like honda.  It is what it is.

But if you decide to make up some junk facts about the other car just to prove you're right ("I won't drive a chevy because they 60% of chevy owners are serial killers.. and I don't want to take the chance of becoming a serial killer") then you can expect some people to challenge you on your assertion because.. well.. it's stupid.

Wye wrote:
Your example is one of preference.. there's no right or wrong in preference.  Some people like chevys.. some like ford.. some like honda.  It is what it is.

But if you decide to make up some junk facts about the other car just to prove you're right ("I won't drive a chevy because they 60% of chevy owners are serial killers.. and I don't want to take the chance of becoming a serial killer") then you can expect some people to challenge you on your assertion because.. well.. it's stupid.

I agree with this. Serial killers could drive any make or model car they have enough money to buy or moxie to steal or borrow.