Then I'll make the transition of that in a sense then, to the subject matter at hand as an example, being that it is something that can be picked up later on by others, effectively I still take the stance that an opinion cannot be destroyed unless you prove explicitly that they are wrong, as you say you can cheat by killing a person, converting them or perhaps suppressing them on the matter, but you did not in the end defeat the opinion itself by explicitly proving it wrong, you only won over a person in an argument but not the idea or interpretation in this case as it can be taken over by others as well, and the only way to beat it as we both seem to agree is when you actually prove it wrong. Thus I do not necessarily disagree with hero either because you have yet to do so from my perspective, you have simply stated your own opinion on the matter at that is about it in the end.
Oh that is such bull, can I form either an opinion or an idea without cognitive thought? They exist on the same basis in the end, and freedom can be said to be an idea or do you recall the demands made by fascism which is also an idea about giving up freedom for security and success. The only real instinct is survival in the end. V challenged an idea as much as an institution as well, freedom also entails ones ability to have an opinion at the same time, the one where the government takes away that 'freedom' however, basically doing as you say on the matter of killing a person or in this case suppressing them, but in the end they could not do that or achieve it in its totality as V was able to reason and prove in the end. Opinions are interchangeable with ideas, they require thought, a primary example of this being the struggle between two different ideas, one of freedom and one of security, just as two different opinions can have at the same time. That is the purity I think V was talking about in the end, you cannot in the end really suppress or eradicate peoples wills and beliefs in the end, you cannot suppress their ideas or their opinions, especially when you are simply using your own views as some kind of justification to do so, which is what I think you are doing right now on the matter and what I think you are advocating in this case. And dammit all, I need to go to bed already! >_>
But this is effectively what you are challenging, or have you been blind to the whole conflict arising on the matter and which you have now entered? This is a struggle between two parties now, with differing ideals and opinions shared amongst the members of these parties confronting one another on this specific issue. I also acknowledged the point about proving an opinion wrong, I've used that argument more times then I can count and as such I have yet to see you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt or with clear evidence on the topic of whether Lelouch is alive or not in this case.
How do ideas arise in the first place? They came from a person or persons opinion on a matter, whether they believed as such from the beginning or were convinced as such later on, the only difference in your view being scope and degree, but in terms of its non-physical and rather more mentally oriented form its still basically the same, or are you disregarding the number of opposing ideals that also challenge one another in the world? Arrgghhh, lets stop already, this is getting us nowhere and I need to go to bed already >_>
And has anybody said that to you in this case? No? Didn't think so, if a person does not concede on this point then you haven't won anything, as is always the case, effectively you only ever win out on one person whose opinion you change, but that opinion itself is not defeated as another person can simply take it up along the way and you have nothing to once again definitively deny it in this case. You can defeat people, you can't defeat opinions though in the end if what I'm getting anyway.
I often go back to V for Vendetta on such matters, that while the truncheon may be used in the lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power, for they offer the means to meaning. Effectively, even killing a person will not defeat an idea if you cannot prove it wrong on the basis of thought and reason, for an idea has no real physical form to attack in this case and can be carried on longer then any person or thing, which is what I thought you were getting at, but if you want to resort to such... hollow tactics to further your aim then I don't really feel like taking a part in it. Don't respond to this post, I need some sleep and I don't care to further satisfy your apparent ego or agenda to prove you can simply outlast a person or something, that wins you nothing in the end because once again you prove nothing against what you are actually trying to defeat, the opinion and the idea.
Irony proves what exactly? If anything it proves that neither side can actually win outright because it is simply based on opinion in the end, to stop responding wouldn't change that because you didn't definitively prove it wrong in the end, and that becomes the whole juxtaposition in regards to opinion and actually goes against the credence you have on facts because you have provided nothing substantially concrete to prove as such and it only works in the favor of opinion in this case that you can't, whether they push the matter or not, they can effectively hold on to that position they maintain regardless.
This is a poor example as it does not illustrate, at all, the complexity that is present in the opinions being discussed. Calling an opinion bulletproof is a falacy, something you failed to address, because bulletproof means that the opinion cannot be contested. In this simple case that you provided, the opinion is easily contested by someone who does not agree. Perhaps you are thinking of the proverb that 'ideas are bulletproof'? An idea and an opinion are completely different animals.
It is as simple as:
A: Dogs are cute.
B: I disagree for this reason.
A: That is your opinion.
Neither opinion is bulletproof, bulletproof would mean that it cannot be contested, that it is unwavering. That is what a fact is, not an opinion. Even by the simple reason that opinions can change for the person, say A stops thinking dogs are cute, making them wavering and not bulletproof. As you can see, also, in my example, the opinions are both being contested but neither party presses the issue.
Care to extend the example, explain what this is. Opinions are "Bulletproof" because they cannot be shot down on the grounds of realistic assessments. If you mean opinions can change, then I whole heartily agree with you. Opinions cannot and should not be contested, simply due to the fact that opinions are not based on evidence but rather initial feeling after a certain event. Yes, opinions do spark debates, heck, they are the backbone of debates, yet do not play a vital role in discussions. If you were to put IMO, in a thesis-based paper, it would be an automatic deduction, because it just doesn't happen. Inferences however, are opinions with evidence supporting them, and are subjected to debate and criticisms because the writer must be assessed on how he weighed the evidence and facts, and whether he did a proper assessment with a fair ground. The moment an opinion is supported by a fact, the term opinion is no longer used, it's context is changed to "opinion"
Definition of opinion on dictionary.com in this context is "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."
Definition of inference on dictionary.com in this context is "The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence."
Facts are spawned from opinions. You can not find new facts if people never brought their opinions up because no one would ever say anything out of the expected. A scientific theory as an example, is the opinion of someone that uses certain evidence to push that idea. This is, as you said inference, but the use of inference requires the presence of an opinion. String Theory is an easy example to reference. People have varying opinions on the matter and contest the theory because their opinions disagree. Their opinions disagree because they have different inferences from the data presented. An inference is started by opinions and leads to further opinions.
If you ever actually go in a debate forum (a real life place for debating, not the internet forum) you will notice that most of what people debate are their opinions based on interpretations of facts or evidence. It is all about opinions, if no one had a differing opinion, or if opinions were not present in high level forums of debate, then there would be no debate. People who do not disagree and do not have differing opinions nor voice their opinions cannot have a discussion. You cannot start a fire without fuel.
Facts are not spawned by opinions. That is a big mistake. Facts are based on measurable and concrete evidence. There are not absolutes, not even facts are absolutes. Facts are commonly accepted as true, and are never in dispute unless new evidence is presented. This is shown in several parts in real life.
During World War 1, the Ottoman Empire/Turks are known throughout the world to have caused the genocide of Armenians over a surplus of 1.5 million. There is enough evidence to convict them of such an event. British Admiral, Winston Churchill called this a "Holocaust." Yet, even to this day, the Turks, and even the Americans do not claim this as a "fact." The Turks go as far as to deny this even happened. Yet every other country, who witnessed this bloody event claims it as a fact. On an interesting note, if you claim this genocide happened in Turkey, you could actually get arrested. If you were to deny this genocide happened in France, you could also get arrested. This is one example of a "fact" dispute. Therefore, not even facts, as you say are absolutes.
I prefer not to go into the world of science in this Facts vs Inference debate since Science takes it to a whole new context of Laws and Theories. God knows how long that will take.
Well, the real interaction was with CC though. "^^
You can't deny that the scene in 24 was actually gonna be romantic.
And about Nunally, that is family so yeah. Afterall the family bond was the general theme in CG.