I honestly haven't laughed this much and hard in quite a while now. Thank you all for making this possible and most of all our beloved OP whose stubborness is only matched by his hilarious laziness in regards to discourse and social interaction. You guys just wasted an hour of my studying time. Thanks again. Seriously. Keep it up.
Do you hate people who argue till they are blue in the face, even though you know they are wrong?
- Thread starter Grant Hobba
- Start date
No, I do not hate people who argue till they are blue in the face, even though I know they are wrong. I hate people who argue till they are blue in the face, even though they know they are wrong. If someone believes something I admire that they will argue it to no end.
But if someone argues just because they don't want to admit they are wrong, I don't like that one bit.
Also, definition of music? Dafuq? how how can you define music? that's insane.
But if someone argues just because they don't want to admit they are wrong, I don't like that one bit.
Also, definition of music? Dafuq? how how can you define music? that's insane.
Wow this chart pretty much dispels...TopazFusion said:
almost everything that drives fights on this website.
I feel sorry for him, everyone pretty much ganged up on him. It seemed a bit harsh.Vault101 said:
Oh don't worry about it. I've stated multiple times that I'm making a freaking "Tribute of Madness" for when he gets banned, so even the powers that be know that he's off his rocker.Vault101 said:
Also, good choice.
You've seen his blog, right?Colour-Scientist said:
He more or less admitted that he was a total troll.
Ah.Colour-Scientist said:
Well, this is the most passive-aggressive OP I've seen in a long time. That probably helped.
Um...Grant Hobba said:
Who gave you a clear cut definition on "Music" as an abstract?
I mean, sure, different kinds of music can be defined as particular kinds of music. Like a 15 tone set, minimalist music and the like. All of that can be defined with ease.
But music as a whole, as a concept, cannot be defined. If you have a textbook that states otherwise your textbook is wrong. If you have tutors that have stated otherwise your tutors are wrong. To try and define music one would require a philosophy degree, not "A few years studying music".
I have composed music. Hell, I have quite a few qualifications sitting around (Grade 3 piano, got bored. Grade 5 piano theory, stopped when I ran out of money to spend on luxuries like music qualifications). Oh, plus two years studying it at a GCSE level what... 4 years ago? Five?
I am sorry. This is going to get circular, very, very quickly, but you cannot state that something is not music. You cannot simply "Define" music. Much like you cannot define poetry.
Sure, you can understand the rules, the common ones at least. You can state how beautiful that cadence is and how you hate dischord. You can wax lyrical on tonal and a-tonal riffs. But you cannot define and you cannot understand music. You cannot state that something is not musical if someone finds it musical. I am sorry.
You can disagree with them on how enjoyable it is to listen to, how complex it is, whether you like it or not. But you cannot state that it is or is not music. There is no absolute.
Then again, there is absolutely no point in trying to argue this. You simply believe that you have understood and can define all music, written, unwritten, heard, unheard. The thread is a thinly veiled attack on people like myself who disagree for multiple reasons, be they logical or philosophical.
Finally.
People argue against the content of a book because any book you can find is as fallible as wikipedia, in many cases moreso. I can find you books that will show how genocide is ok, books that will "Prove" the world is 6,000 years old, books that deny science or books that are simply out-moded and out dated. When I studied history we used a book that consitently used phrases like "As strong as the Berlin Wall". Do you believe that book is modern enough to be used these days?
No.
Hell no.
Read more then one textbook. Then you might have an opinion worth hearing.
OT:
Uh. No. People who continue arguing until they are blue in the face do not bother me. They amuse me. And depress me. Ignorance is not something to be laughed at.
Unless it is presented in a senator, congressmen, president, prime-minister, basically anyone with power. Then it gets funny.
I'm going to completely ignore all of the stuff carried over from another thread for a minute and post my view. In cases of fact, such as who is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, this can get very annoying. However, for anything other than right and wrong trivia answers I think anything is always open for discussion.
"An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds"
That can include any combination of sounds that anyone enjoys listening too and decides to call music. That way, we can avoid alienating anyone by saying that something they love is or is not music.
Now, I disagree with your, somewhat closed, definition of music. To me, music is better defined like this:Grant Hobba said:
"An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds"
That can include any combination of sounds that anyone enjoys listening too and decides to call music. That way, we can avoid alienating anyone by saying that something they love is or is not music.
Oh, so so many people have pulled that on me. It's annoying.Legion said:
Also, when people concede and then bring up the same talking points like an hour later.
So many people didn't get mentioned, kind of makes me sad. Then again after a few thousand posts it must be hard to keep track of everything, even for someone so magnificent.Vault101 said:
OT: It can amusing to though.
Though if we're going with the other topic on this about your apparent hate for dubstep...yeah no. Music cannot really be defined. 20 year old college student? You certainly know everything don't you? Tip: Being a college student does not mean you suddenly know everything. In fact becoming a college student should instead be the point where you realize you don't know shit.
I once made a thread similar to this topic. But it was about things you could actually 100% prove, like if a certain actor was in a certain movie.
The Monty Hall problem:
The Monty Hall problem:
I spent ages arguing in high school that it was advantageous and the chance of getting the car was 2/3. My friends disagreed and said it was 50/50. Even an English teacher joined them (which I almost got a detention for implying her opinion had no greater weight unless she was a maths teacher).
Oh it's great, it always makes me crack up. Especially one line I came across the first time Daystar linked us to help discredit him.Trilligan said:
"I just don't like dudes wearing sunglasses in broad daylight. Honestly, who are you? Fonz?"
Sunglasses? In BROAD DAYLIGHT!? WHAT IS THIS MADNESS!?