Ronaldo

Post by **Best First** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:35 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote: Both opinions are based on nothing at all I guess, and both are fair to say, but are purely gossip.

eh?

how is either fair until you know the score?

makes.no.sense.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:04 pm

because everyone is entiled to an opinion (last time I checked) - unfortuantly, in this case, they are based on [composite word including 'f*ck'] all. either way u can still choose a baseless opinion on "ronny the rapist" - or "gold-digging bitch"

Which is why I think ppl shouldnt be 'entitled' to an opinion... thats a different matter tho

Post by **Best First** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:45 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:because everyone is entiled to an opinion (last time I checked) - unfortuantly, in this case, they are based on **** all. either way u can still choose a baseless opinion on "ronny the rapist" - or "gold-digging bitch"

Which is why I think ppl shouldnt be 'entitled' to an opinion... thats a different matter tho

being entitled to an opinion has nothing to do with those opinions being fair.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:58 pm

of course.

All im saying is that calling Ronaldo a rapist, or calling the other girl a gold-digger is as fair a comment as each other.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:21 am

yes, in that they are both as equally stupid and ill founded at this stage.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:40 pm

yes - and so if someone wants to say, "shes a gold-digger" and thus a stupid comment, is it not equally stupid to argue shes not a gold digger?
scemantics?

Post by **Best First** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:49 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:yes - and so if someone wants to say, "shes a gold-digger" and thus a stupid comment, is it not equally stupid to argue shes not a gold digger?
scemantics?

no, its nothing to do with sementics, sematics is about the meanings of words, not the application of logic, ergo;

no one is saying she definitely isn't a "gold digger", they (I) are saying that the accusation is premature at best and simplistic idiocy at worst and serves no purpose other than to smear someone before you know anything the case. Obviously.

The whole point being made is that 'its too soon to say and therefore wrong to cast accusations' therefore countering 'but you are saying she isn't' is missing the pointy entirely, because what is being said is that at present she isn't established as being anything.

innocent until proven guilty is, i believe, a fairly well established principle and one that's worth hanging onto. If people want to make braindead tabloid guttersnipe comments on subjects like rape be prepared to have them picked apart.

Post by **Denyer** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:38 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote: if someone wants to say, "shes a gold-digger" and thus a stupid comment, is it not equally stupid to argue shes not a gold digger?

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

—D.N.A.