Well, in theory, you're wrong. In reality, you are totally right. It's like if someone says "The Republicans are good"
It's subjective, right?
It's subjective, right?
"it's subjective..." as a comeback
- Thread starter Daveman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Mere consensus does not have the power to make something a fact, no matter how overwhelming that consensus may be.Twilight_guy said:
And OP, why not just point out the hypocrisy in saying "you can't say X because it's subjective"? Of course it's subjective, that's why you can say X. If you say something's easy, or enjoyable, then it's implicit in your statement that you're making a subjective judgement. Unless you use extremely strong words ("This game is the worst ever!" "If you like this then you're a moron." "X is for kids"), there's no good reason to believe that you're stating them as objective truths and not as opinion.
Use of such a comeback implies they disagree with you but lack the preparation or effort to construct a meaningful refutation.
Respond with a retort on roughly the same intellectual level; but establish a moral high ground through irony and wit. Optimum response is perhaps something along the lines of "You're subjective". Persons intelligent enough to realise how hypocritical they are being will be able to appreciate how inane their original objection was and correct themselves. The unintelligent remainder need not have their opinions sought subsequently and thus we should not concern ourselves with their views.
Respond with a retort on roughly the same intellectual level; but establish a moral high ground through irony and wit. Optimum response is perhaps something along the lines of "You're subjective". Persons intelligent enough to realise how hypocritical they are being will be able to appreciate how inane their original objection was and correct themselves. The unintelligent remainder need not have their opinions sought subsequently and thus we should not concern ourselves with their views.
It's good to state your opinions, objectivity cannot exist on a forum. It's easy to be brought down by the literary criticism police (not that I've seen them in action here). Generally, people here are pretty good.
It is a perfectly fine comeback when someone tells you that a PS3 has better games than an Xbox or any of those kinds of arguments. Basically it forces the debate away from childish opinion based squabbling and forces everyone to come up with facts.
Every single debate I have with people, always ends with 'that's your opinion and this is mine' sort of statements...
...it's not always so, some arguments are just to compelling to ignore. Such as gravity and evolution. Established facts in other words.
...it's not always so, some arguments are just to compelling to ignore. Such as gravity and evolution. Established facts in other words.
That's the thing. Fact doesn't mean true, it means what is generally accepted to be true. That's why everything is subjective and why it is utterly pointless to point it out. The colour green is subjective to colour blind people.Skeleon said:
But there will be times when people will not come to the same conclusion. It is like if 99.9% of the world population loved a game but someone hated it there would be no absolute conclusion to come to. 99.9% of the world would see the game as good but one person would see the game as bad and no amount of debating would change their opinion on the matter.Daveman said:
I suppose if they were killed that would make an absolute conclusion on the game but the point of debate is to convince not kill.
Lonko said:
What the people think may not be fact, but the fact that they all agree on what they all think is a fact. You can prove that most people like ice cream but you can't prove that ice cream is enjoyable. I'm talking about proving the consensus not saying that majority opinion makes things true.antiwheat said:
To be truly objective, you'd have to use nowt but logic - using about as much intuition as is required to breathe.
So it's pretty damn impossible to give an objective viewpoint on anything, short of coming up with a mathematical formula, which if applied to, say, a game would just be viewed as a big steaming pile of dingo's kidneys.
You'd never be able to objectively quantify defining qualities like "fun", "entertainment" and "immersion" anyway, since all of these vary from person to person based on personality and current mental state.
I hate quasi-intellectual cop-out comments like "that's a subjective opinion" (that's a tautology, damn it) and "well, obviously we're not meant to know how governmental policy works" which are spouted ad nauseam by stubborn tosspots who don't agree with something you say but can't come up with a valid argument to back up their views.
So it's pretty damn impossible to give an objective viewpoint on anything, short of coming up with a mathematical formula, which if applied to, say, a game would just be viewed as a big steaming pile of dingo's kidneys.
You'd never be able to objectively quantify defining qualities like "fun", "entertainment" and "immersion" anyway, since all of these vary from person to person based on personality and current mental state.
I hate quasi-intellectual cop-out comments like "that's a subjective opinion" (that's a tautology, damn it) and "well, obviously we're not meant to know how governmental policy works" which are spouted ad nauseam by stubborn tosspots who don't agree with something you say but can't come up with a valid argument to back up their views.
The point is that "good" and "bad" refer to certain criteria. Most frequently they tend to be used subjectively as a way of saying "I like..." or "I don't like...".
If you want to make it clear you are arguing from an objective viewpoint, you should define why with points that can be proven by an independent measure. For instance, say "Song X sucks because the lyrics don't rhyme or scan, the vocalist can't reach some of the notes he is trying to sing, and the guitarist is slightly out of time with the drummer."
If you want to make it clear you are arguing from an objective viewpoint, you should define why with points that can be proven by an independent measure. For instance, say "Song X sucks because the lyrics don't rhyme or scan, the vocalist can't reach some of the notes he is trying to sing, and the guitarist is slightly out of time with the drummer."
If you're going to argue for something, you should state why you're in favour of it. However, if the facts have been stated enough times, then there really isn't any point to stating the same facts over and over again when you can just state your opinion and say something along the lines of for the same reason as everyone else in favour of it, or even better, quote someone who has just stated your reason for it and then just put agreed.
I don't see it as much of a problem personally but I can see why people would hate it so much as they can sometimes contribute very little to the conversation at hand if done wrongly.
I don't see it as much of a problem personally but I can see why people would hate it so much as they can sometimes contribute very little to the conversation at hand if done wrongly.
yes but for the sake of argument we say that it isn't subjective because it is not our own personal opinion, rather it is opinion on the whole. otherwise almost anything can be considered subjective.Zeeky_Santos said:
except when yahtzee does it, then it is funnygof22 said:
but due to subjectivity they may not be a valid reason for it sucking as that might be exactly what appeals to everyone else. So basically everyone has to put "I think..." in front of the equivalent to your above statement so that they aren't called up on grounds of subjectivity. that's where I get pissed off.Agema said: