AnimeSuki Forums

That's an oversimplification and a straw man, there are opinions that can be thought out and that include reasoning, they are still opinions and can be based on nothing but a personal interpretation of 'facts' or facts with nothing backing. They are reasoned opinions, but they are still opinions.
As I said originally, the dog example is a gross-oversimplification. And it can be criticized by an equally baseless opinion, or by an opinion with base but still an opinion, if Person C disagree that dogs are not cute, he's criticized the opinion by putting forth an opinion that disagrees.

You need to stop mentioning inference, I told you that the evolution of an opinion in a discussion is natural. But if one completed theory or supported point wins, then one of the opinions has ultimately won. Opinions can be challenged.
Seeing as how I was talking about physical theories, no less, I know full well that even facts are not absolutes.

Opinions can be attacked. What are we doing right now? We are attacking each others' opinions on the matter. And, I can use science as an example, just because you do not wish it does not stop me from using it.
Yes, my view is very odd... sigh. The very point that you are contesting, or that this contest of opinions on what an opinion amounts to, is in and of itself enough to show you that opinions can and will be challenged. You just don't seem to realize that.

Opinions are bulletproof because there is no assessment. Opinions are basically the "spur" of the moment. An opinion is not and should not include any reasoning. They cannot be criticized because they are based solely(or usually) on one's feeling of the matter.

Person A: I think dogs are cute.

This is an opinion! Do you see any evidence supporting this opinion? It cannot be criticized simply there is nothing to be assessed...You cannot criticize whether or not person A took fairly into account all the facts or evidence regarding said statement.

Person B: I like dogs because they're small

This is an inference, simply because, there is evidence. This inference can be criticized, simply because there is evidence, which can be criticized to whether or not the supporting argument is valid and if it's constant.

The moment the opinion is supported by measurable evidence or facts, it becomes an inference, it no longer retains the position of an opinion. Opinions form inferences, henceforth are pretty vital to discussions, however, they hold no ground in the literal sense in discussions.

There are not absolutes, even for facts. To my said, example, The Armenian genocide did happen for a fact. Yet there are still people who deny this. There is enough evidence to convict them of such an atrocity.

Opinions can and will change (usually). But they cannot themselves be attacked. They can change with the use of persuasion and facts, but cannot be attacked directly through criticisms. You, again, cannot use science as an example of an opinion, simply because Science is based on a whole new system using theories and laws, which I really really don't want to go into.

This, like Krimzon said, will probably go on to an event of attrition, deeming it useless and unwanted by both you and me, when we could very well spend our time doing something else. Our views on the matter differ, as you tend to see it partially in the scientific and really odd way, while I tend to go with society. (Odd as in your view of Wishes vs Opinions)

The irony, that I just realized, is that we are arguing opinions. If one of us gives up, that would render the opinion 'defeated' meaning that the opinion was contested and shot down. If I'm not mistaken this simple case of irony proves something...

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."

This can be any number of theoretical reasons that can be used to argue that dogs are not cute. Nevertheless, the opinion can be contested and always will be contested because people will not agree. Opinions are shot down on a daily basis, opinions are not bulletproof because opinions are not equal. The opinion of a mental retard is not equal to the opinion of PhD professor on the matter that the professor has his degree in. (You could in theory contest and destroy an oponent's opinion by simply killing them .)
Any and all opinions can and will be contested because that is how debates start if opinions were not contested there would be no debates. Your own point contradicts you in that opinions are the ignition to a debate. Those opinions have to disagree with one another to start the debate, meaning that the two opinions are being contested by both sides. From there begins inference which leads to an evolution of the opinions, but, until that opinion becomes accepted as factual, it is nothing more than an opinion grounded in reality. It is nevertheless still an opinion.
Further, it is a gross over simplification that putting "IMO" in a thesis paper would be a deduction. A thesis paper was started by your opinion on a matter that you then followed up and attempted to prove or substantiate. Once it is substantiated (in the form of your thesis paper) it is no longer an opinion, it is a presentation of accrued facts that support your idea. You will not put "IMO" in a thesis because the entire thesis was based on your own cognitive thought and therein your opinion on a matter but was proved one way or the other, losing it status as an opinion.
Compare the two definitions, you'll notice that, like I said, an inference is an evolution of the initial opinion that initiated the debate. Loosely, though, it is still based on your opinion. An opinion that can, through inference, become a better point than an opinion that, through equal inference, could not, is a more valid opinion. Hence, opinions are not equal and are not bulletproof.
And thank you, as your point again contradicts itself, I originally said that opinions are evolved in debates. An inference, like you said and like I said, is an opinion that has been backed and supported, but is nevertheless still your opinion. The opinion that could not be supported or substantiated was the weaker opinion, and the opinion that ultimately lost. If the product of the opinion can be defeated then the opinion itself can be defeated. And since debates have clear winners, one opinion clearly lost in the end. This is reverse transition.

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.

Facts are, indeed, spawned by opinions, but not all opinions spawn facts and not all facts are spawned from opinions. An opinion that can be taken to the ultimate level and proven and backed becomes factual. Einstein was the opinion that Newton was wrong, he supported his opinion, through inferences, by creating General and Special Relativity, resulting in his substantiated opinion ultimately being in fact, true or factual. Einstein's opinion that Newton's equations were wrong became fact, it all started from a single disagreeing opinion on the matter. Even more basic, Newton's opinion that things worked in mysterious ways that could not be explained away by religion or nonsense, also became fact. But in the end, his opinion was eventually disproven by Einstein, meaning his opinion was ultimately wrong and lost the status of factual. Everything starts with an opinion that disagrees with the majority. Socrates is another example, as is Aristotle. They were the advocates in the Greek Era of free thought, of sharing and pushing one's opinions, and of discovering the world. If opinions were not part of the creation of facts then facts would just spring up out of nowhere everyday. It takes a differing opinion to challenge the status quo and change it. Opinions are the basis for finding new facts, as is also random chance.
Your Turkish example is also poor. If there was enough evidence to convict them, why were they not convicted? There is clearly not enough evidence to make the case absolute. This is a dispute of "facts" not facts. Though you do have a point in that even facts can be disputed, which, however, puts holes in your own argument that opinions are bulletproof. At which point I have to wonder what we're arguing at this point...

I am using science as an example because it is a common place for opinions to be contested and defeated. Opinions that are further by inference and defeated, are opinions that were defeated. Ultimately, as per the string theory example, one opinion on string theory will win out. The other opinions will be proven wrong. If I am of the opinion that string theory won't work, but Person D says it will work, and say one day it is proven that string theory is as proven or disproven as can possibly be in science, then one opinion has been proven wrong. It is a very simple example of opinions being defeatable.
If you go back in time and show people, who are of the opinion that the world is flat, that in fact the world is round, you are defeating the opinion that the world is flat. You are changing their understanding and using facts to prove it, but you are still disproving an opinion because the opinion will be destroyed for those people. The opinion "died".

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.
The End.

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.

To not drag the generic thread further off topic:
An opinion is bulletproof.

Person A: Dogs are cute!

Care to take a shot at that? It is an opinion. Yet, it is also not a fact that dogs are cute, and not everyone can agree on it, therefore it's an opinion. So how do opinions differentiate from facts? Facts are a statement that is commonly accepted as true and is based on measurable evidence. Facts are never in dispute unless new evidence is presented. So not even facts are completely bulletproof from arguments.

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.
The End.

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.

Opinions never or hardly ever contribute to a discussion, because they carry no proof, no backbone, no solid evidence. The moment evidence is presented, it becomes an inference since it is basically, an interpretation or an "inference" of a particular fact. They are basically the relationship between facts. Now, in argumentative writing, whether or not the writer (you) take a fair evaluation of the facts and evidence, challenges the validity of your argument or generally your thesis.

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.