[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.02 MB, 1571x844, 581969main_4-panel_graphic_no_labels.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3762868 [Reply] [Original]

I find most people to be idiotic. When I correct them when they say something stupid, they usually get mad and say something along the lines of "It's my opinion" (even when it is a 'fact') or "talk to me when you have a degree" (even when it's a simple concept and I have evidence) or "where's your evidence" (even when it's something that can be logical reasoned, which is the evidence)

Should you ever correct people when they say something?
If not, how will they ever learn?
Should only 'qualified' people be allowed to correct people?
What makes someone qualified?
Should you only correct people on things considered fact?
What is required for something to be considered a fact?
Can you correct someone on opinion?
I think you can but many people tell me otherwise. Ex. Someone says Kesha (picked a random musician) is an extremely talented musician. I say she is not. I go on to provide evidence, reasoning, and examples of better musicians. They say, it's a matter of opinion, I can't be wrong. I then say, fine, I am the most talented singer ever (I suck at singing), it is an opinion, it can't be wrong. Obviously, it is wrong though.
Can you correct someone if there opinion has no evidence?

TL:DR
Should you correct people if you think they are stupid?

picture unrelated

>> No.3762879

go to /adv/

>> No.3762888

Just do what I do... kill them.

>> No.3762893

>>3762879
I'm not looking at how to be social accepted. I'm asking from a logical standpoint.

>> No.3762892

when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.

>> No.3762906

you pick your battles I suppose..you can't correct everything because every one of us has knowledge gaps...some deeper than others. Not to say you can't pick some chances to teach something to someone, just, like I said, choose your battles.

>> No.3762911

Depends on what kind of relationship you have with them and what kind of presence you hold. Sometimes it's also _how_ you correct them. Some need it to be a gentle correction. Others need it in a sarcastic or funny way.

It all depends.

Why do you suck at human interaction, OP?

>> No.3762909

so much aspergers it hurts...

>> No.3762923

Knock them unconcious, drag them into your basement, and torture them. Not torture for the sheer sake of pain alone, no, that would be too kind. Torture to break their mind, their will, to destroy their entire essence of who they are.

Or you could stop being an ignorant fuck and realize that there are a lot of ignorant fucks out there, and it's your job to pity them, not educate them.

>> No.3762928
File: 32 KB, 600x492, yoda.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3762879
The beauty of opinions is that you cannot provide evidence against them.
You say: I am the greatest singer alive.
That is an opinion. You cannot say: This is why this opinion is wrong. This is because opinions are completely subjective.
For instance,
If I tell you the sky is red, your evidence is the sky, and the common definition of the colors blue and red. You can say I am wrong because I stated it as a fact.
But if I look at the sky and tell you: "Well imo that's red" I am not "right", nor am I "wrong" I have just stated my opinion that the sky is red. I have marked my statement as an opinion, and therefore a belief.
Much to learn you have about accepting others' retarded (and sometimes non-retarded) beliefs.

>> No.3762939

I assumed you were serious until the Kesha part.

Yes, Kesha is fucking terrible, but ALL music is subjective.

Don't mind me, just correcting you.

>> No.3762946

>>3762868
When the student is ready the teacher will appear... good quote. Except, I think it is you who needs to prepare yourself before the teacher appears. It's easy to feel you have it all figured out, but you don't. You never will, and virtually everything you think is completely contextual.

>> No.3762961

Unless the correction is very important, such something related to your job, don't correct people. There's no point in doing so other than to impose your ego onto others. You'll also come off as being an annoying smart aleck, all talk and no walk.

>> No.3762968

>I find most people to be idiotic

Thats just your opinion, and that opinion of yours is incorrect.
And i have evidence:
Idiot indicated the greatest degree of intellectual disability, where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard himself or herself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by the term profound mental retardation.

>Should you correct people if you think they are stupid?

Yes, just like i have done so to you.

>> No.3762971

>>3762892
So only correct someone that wants to learn?
Wouldn't people continue to think they are right about something, even if there is clear evidence they are wrong? Should people being clearly wrong, yet thinking they know something for certain, be accepted then?

>>3762911
>Why do you suck at human interaction
I don't have a goal with interacting with people.

>>3762928
>The beauty of opinions is that you cannot provide evidence against them.
>Well imo that's red
Check the light spectrum for color of sky. Find out what color that frequency is. The color is not red. You stated an opinion, but I provided evidence against why it is wrong.

>>3762923
>pity them, not educate them.
I do pity them. For that reason, I want to educate them.

>> No.3762998

>>3762971
no because my opinion defined the sky as red and red as the color of the sky
opinions are not touchable
they are not statements of fact, they are statements of belief
I imagine you're a riot when interacting with Christians
go back to middle school

>> No.3762999

>>3762971
>I don't have a goal with interacting with people.

Sure you do. This is your thread, right? You claimed to suck at correcting people. I pointed out that you suck at interacting with people, as indicated by your inability to correct people without them spitting in your eye. That shows you suck at interacting with people.

I aslo pointed out where you're sucking at during that interaction.

NOW LEARN YOU IDIOT STUDENT LEARN

>> No.3762996

>>3762971

>I don't have a goal of interacting with people

Well, then don't. What does it matter to you if people are wrong if they don't interact with you?

Oh, but what they do affects you? Then you need to interact with them. Then you need to learn not to be a giant douchebag.

>> No.3763014

>>3762939
>I assumed you were serious until
I am serious.
>ALL music is subjective.
Music taste is subjective, but talent on the other hand, is not (or at least entirely).

>>3762961
I want them to learn. If I said something idiotic, I would want to be corrected.

>>3762968
Idiotic was poor word choice. By idiotic I meant, people who don't think logically. Not sure if there is a good adjective for that.

>> No.3763019

>>3762868
look at dr. house
he is trying to tell you that when someone states a belief, your logic is pointless, because a belief is defined as:
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Oh wait that's the definition of "opinion" OP,
do you understand yet?

>> No.3763024
File: 48 KB, 800x600, if-you-could-reason-wth-religious-people-there-would-be-no-religious-people-house.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3763019
: ( post loses impact

>> No.3763032

>>3762999

your student is not ready, good teacher...

>> No.3763039

>>3763014
judgement of talent is based on taste
failfagfailfagfailfag
you are a shitty person OP, and i'm saying this to help you
accepting that someone believes something and you can't correct it is not the same as accepting their belief yourself.

>> No.3763049

>>3763019
>>3763024

Dr House is also a fictional character that would have undoubtedly gotten the shit kicked out of him multiple times in real life.

>> No.3763058

>>3763049
someone missed the fucking point
try reading past the fourth word and paying less attention to the pic this time
;) i'm sure you'll get it

>> No.3763063

>>3762998
What your saying doesn't make sense.
Think about your argument for a second. Your now saying you change the definition of a word so it is an opinion. The definition of red as in the range __ to __ in the spectrum isn't opinion. You can't change that definition. You can try and make a communication error, but that doesn't prove any point.

>>3763039
>world's fastest runner in 100m is talented. at running 100m.
Not an opinion, it is fact.

>> No.3763066

>>3763058

I got what you were saying. House just angers me, that's all.

God I hate that fucking show.

>> No.3763064

OP, if someone states a factual error, just let it go. no need to correct them. teach by example later.

>> No.3763076

>>3763063

I like how you completely ignored everyone that told you to let it go.

>> No.3763094

>>3763076
I haven't been responding to people I agree with, and people that are saying things that are clearly not serious. I also haven't responded to all the comments I want to yet. I have been reading every comment and thinking about them.

>> No.3763096

OP will be forever alone, and that's a fact.

>> No.3763133

>>3763063
I'm done arguing OP, your opinions are irrational.
You have more than enough here to elevate yourself.
Your choice.
and that's how it's done.
Goodnight. School tomorrow.

>> No.3763167

>>3762999
>This is your thread, right?
True, I do have a goal from interacting. To learn and to teach.
>That shows you suck at interacting with people.
I suck at trying to convince people of something they already had an opinion otherwise on.
>>3763019
>not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Opinions are based on your brain. Two people with identical brains would have identical opinions (source needed). You may not understand the reasoning behind believing something, but it is there.
People can change their opinions with time, usually this happens when they get more knowledge on the topic.
I feel a bad opinion is an opinion that lacks knowledge or reasoning. Think of an opinion on something scientific. The more knowledge you have, the more likely you are to be correct. Opinions we're talking about, is just what is correct in your brain at the time (source needed).
>>3763133
>your opinions are irrational
If that was try it would be quite the paradox. My opinion is that opinions can be irrational. If this opinion is rational I am correct. If this opinion is irrational, that would be a contradiction. That means, one of these must be a fact.
Opinions can be considered irrational.
It is a fact that opinions are rational.
If the later is true, what you said is incorrect.

>> No.3763193

>>3763167
>to teach
Since you're being logical and all, explain why you feel the need to teach other people. Do you have a degree or any qualification to do so? What do you accomplish by correcting other people? Does it make you feel better, smarter, more confident, and improve your sense of self-worth? Do your feelings get hurt when people rebuff your correction?

>> No.3763211

>>3763167
>to learn and to teach.
That's the proper order and attitude: learn FIRST, then teach.

>I suck at trying to convince people of something they already had an opinion otherwise on.
Well, like I said earlier, there are several factors involved in your failure:

-what's your relationship to that person? Are you friends? coworkers? classmates? family?
That determines which approach you should use. Friends are most likely to accept new ideas from you. Cowrokers are more likely to not want you correcting them. Classmates will challenge you but will also listen to your correction. Family is a wildcard.

So adjust your approach accordingly. Maybe use a tangential argument to make your point. Ex:

Friend: I think we'll be able to travel back in time in 20 years.
You: Perhaps. According to scientists there are several hurdles to time travel. They're not even sure it's at all possible. Time travel would introduce a series of paradoxes that probably indicate time travel to the past is not possible. For example....
Friend: Oh that's interesting. I didn't know there was so much consensus on that subject. Well, maybe in 100 years?
You: Maybe :)

--OR--
Friend: I think we'll be able to travel back in time in 20 years.
You: No way, dude. I read an article online about how we woul--
Friend: Oh shut the fuck up. You don't know shit, you retard.

See the difference? You approach starts off agreeing and slowly reveals how stupid your friend is. The other starts out with you being an asshole and getting punched in the face.

>> No.3763223

>>3762868
(lololol didn't bother to read whole thread)
This depends entirely on context.
If someone gets your name wrong, it is even encouraged to correct them. Abstract things such as religion, that aren't going to get on the way in any way but your nosy need to convert everyone to support whatever opinion you yourself may have, not so much.
However, please bear in mind that people who aren't familiar with science often consider it to be very incomprehensible and thus they often make assumations that can be hard to correct, and doing so may even anger them. Like how some people believe in those magnet pain reliever thigies. You may try to tell them that if their leg still hurts, they should see a doctor instead of insisting to use it but they won't be happy about losing money to that bullshit.

*yawn* sorry if that made no sense, bye

>> No.3763229

>>3763193
>explain why you feel the need to teach other people
I look back at myself when I was younger and think of all of the things I didn't know. In comparison, I would much rather have the knowledge I have today. I believe in the exact opposite of "ignorance is bliss".
>Do you have a degree or any qualification to do so?
No. One of my questions from the start is if that should be necessary.
>Does it make you feel
>better
Yes, but not about myself.
>smarter
No.
>more confident
In myself? No.
>improve your sense of self-worth?
Yes.

>Do your feelings get hurt when people rebuff your correction?
My feelings don't get hurt. I don't care about people rejecting me in particular. Instead, I care when people reject knowledge and logic.

>> No.3763241

>>3762868
how long does this take?

is it a slow process with massive force or does the black hole whip up the star like it's nothing?

>> No.3763244

/sci/: where you bitch when someone tell you "shut up"

>> No.3763248

OP is a faggot. Fact.

>> No.3763260

>>3763241

Probably depends how close the star is to the event horizon and how big the star is. Stars are incomprehensibly massive. Look at the size of our average-size Sun. It's fucking huge compared to our Earth. And Earth is huge in comparison to our human bodies.

>> No.3763275

>>3763211
Friends and family. I don't have coworkers. I don't talk to classmates.

I try to do more of the first conversation.
>Oh that's interesting. I didn't know there was so much consensus on that subject
Usually ends up being more along the lines of...
>Bullshit
>I don't believe them (or you)
>I don't care what they say
>Stop being a know-it-all
>Okay if your so smart why don't you tell me... (something that doesn't make sense. I go on to explain why it doesn't make sense) or (something that I actually do know and try and explain. Usually they don't believe me just because they thought it was something that was unknown) or (something I don't know, but doesn't need to be known for the previous conversation).

>>3763223
>please bear in mind that people who aren't familiar with science often consider it to be very incomprehensible and thus they often make assumations that can be hard to correct, and doing so may even anger them. Like how some people believe in...
So should I correct them or not? This is the case more than half the time. They always tell me "you don't have an open mind".

>> No.3763282

>>3763229
If your self-worth is tied with interaction with other people and you're aiming to improve it, maybe you should try something different.

>http://www.wikihow.com/Build-Self-Worth

>> No.3763289

>Be arrogant condescending fuckhead
>People don't like you
>What's the mystery?
>ohrightI'mon/autist/.png

>> No.3763294

>>3763289
What is arrogant with what I said? What is condescending?

I don't care if people like me. I just want them to use reasoning and logic.

>> No.3763301

If I opine that you have three arms, I'm wrong. Period. Yes, the statement "My opinion is that you have three arms," is correct; I do hold that opinion. The fact that it's an opinion doesn't change the fact that it is incorrect. My opinion is a statement of an objectively disprovable non-truth, therefore my opinion is wrong.

Seriously, guys, this shit ain't fuckin' hard.

>> No.3763303

>>3763294
>why are people so stupid, why can't they all be smart like me
Not arrogant at all.

>> No.3763307

lmao the autists that come on here and post about how smart they are and how stupid everyone else is crack me up every time. stay aspie OP hahahahaha

>> No.3763309

>>3763303

If you really are smarter than someone else, is it really arrogance to believe so? If it's an objectively valid fact, you would be wrong to consider anything else to be true.

>> No.3763312

>>3763309
The problem here is your initial assumption that you're smarter than most people.

>> No.3763326
File: 43 KB, 535x312, inception_leonardodicaprio-535x312.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3763167
My opinion is that opinions can be irrational. If this opinion is rational I am correct.
Uses argument he stated was wrong to win argument against person who stated it.

>> No.3763330

>>3763309
>>3763294
>>3762868

Autismal as fuck.

Keep up the good work, /sci/.

>> No.3763331

>>3763312

>implying that I'm assuming that

No, you see, I was posing an abstract hypothetical question. Allow me to rephrase:

Suppose someone who's not me is smarter than I. Objectively. As in indisputable fact. He would be correct to say that he's smarter, and it would not be arrogance.

Just because you assume that you're smarter than everyone else doesn't mean that I do.

>> No.3763338

>>3763312

But that's wrong, you fucking retard.

Nice strawman/ad hominem/whatever.

The argument itself is sound, regardless of your projecting.

>> No.3763340

>>3763331
>assuming we've come up with an objective metric of intelligence yet

>> No.3763342

>>3763331
>>3763338

I hope for your sake you're just a troll, and not a self-important little twat who thinks he has the universe figured out.

Seriously, get the fuck out.

>> No.3763343

>>3763331

One of the cardinal symptoms of an ASD is having difficulty inferring the mental states of others. You're running up against this right now and you won't be able to resolve it in OP by a casual text based argument on an imageboard like this. The inflexibility of OP is also a hallmark of ASD.

And to OP, you would benefit from a few social graces because your later years may turn out to be pretty miserable otherwise.

>> No.3763344

>Ex. Someone says Kesha (picked a random musician) is an extremely talented musician. I say she is not. I go on to provide evidence, reasoning, and examples of better musicians.
>better musicians
There's your problem. There is no such thing, as opinion is entirely subjective. I bet that you do this often with subjective topics, and this is why people act like dicks in return.

>> No.3763348

>>3763340

Jesus Christ, is it really so hard to understand the concept of an abstract argument?

How it's known that Person A is smarter than Person B is entirely irrelevant. *Given* that it is *known* that the former is smarter than the latter, the statement, "I, Person A, am smarter than Person B," is not arrogance, it's simply a statement of established fact.

This is *not* the same as saying, "Well, I really am smarter, so it's not arrogance." Try to ignore the egotism inherent in the situation for like three seconds.

>> No.3763350

>>3763331
I agree on principle (objectively stating you're more capable at something isn't necessarily bad), but in this particular hypothetical situation it depends how you measure 'smartness.'

Do you assign a value to every individual fact and give a score?

In practice, it's really just arrogance and can't be as easily compared to saying something like "Objectively I can run longer and faster than you, therefore I am a better long distance runner."

>> No.3763353

>>3763344

No, it's obviously because he's smarter than everybody else and people hate smart people, or otherwise they wouldn't hate him.
Also he's too smart to use circular reasoning, that's why the previous sentence is logically sound.

>Enzyklopädie ytopilo
True, captcha, he's so smart he could write an entire encyclopedia und ytopilo, or the art of being so smart that you're incapable of functioning in social situations.

>> No.3763354

>>3763344
Agreed.

You can only say one musician is objectively better when you pick a set of standards by which to judge them but in doing so you are arbitrarily defining what is 'good.'

>>3763353
Pretty much this.

>> No.3763361

>>3763348
This is completely fucking retarded, as there is no objective metric for intelligence. If you're so smart, why didn't you figure this out?

>> No.3763360

>>3763342

>implying that I'm both of those posters

God, it's funny how all of you self-important asshats seem to think that I'm trying to justify my own arrogance. Has any single one of you considered the possibility that I'm simply explaining why I disagree with the view that any claim of superior anything is arrogance, regardless of the truth of the claim?

ITT: a disagreement on the definition of arrogance turns into a bunch of aspies calling someone who disagrees with them autistic.

>> No.3763364

>>3763350

Again, the argument has nothing to do with how you arrive at the conclusion that one person is more intelligent than other, because the entire argument is based on the assumption that it is so.

>> No.3763365

>>3763289
What is arrogant with what I said? What is condescending?

I don't care if people like me. I just want them to use reasoning and logic.

>>3763330
309 wasn't me.

>>3763326
>My opinion is that opinions can be irrational. If this opinion is rational I am correct.
True.
>Uses argument he stated was wrong to win argument against person who stated it.
I'm confused at what your saying. Just because opinions 'can' be rational, doesn't mean they 'can not' be irrational. If that's not what you are talking about, where did I ever state opinions are rational? Maybe you mean before with me saying that there was reasons behind opinions. Yes, there are rational reasons for why people have opinions, but that doesn't make their opinion rational.

>> No.3763369

>>3763361

Did you even read the post you quoted? What metric is used plays absolutely no part in the argument; the conclusion of whatever arbitrary metric is used is "given."

>> No.3763371

>>3763364
Why don't you just reword your argument so it's like, two people arguing over who is the better potato thrower, and one of them can throw it further.

>> No.3763375

>>3763371

Why assert something by analogy when it can be asserted directly?

>> No.3763379

>>3762868
>...if there opinion has no evidence?
their*

>> No.3763383

>>3763364

Yes, yes, in that case it's trivial and nothing to argue about. That's why we're poking holes into the basic premise, because otherwise there would be nothing to say about it.

>> No.3763384

>>3763375
Because you can avoid all the trolls that are pretending that your argument is about if intelligence in measurable. I'm not saying I have any problem with the way you stated it, I'm just saying a lot of others do and there's an easier way around it (rewording) than just arguing with them.

>> No.3763385

One of the cardinal symptoms of being fucking retarded is having no capacity for reading comprehension whatsoever.

>> No.3763391
File: 93 KB, 485x563, you_fail-12825.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3762868
Why do you talk to stupid people?
WTF is wrong with you?

>> No.3763392

hey op just because you haven't been clinically diagnosed or whatever doesn't mean you don't have autism

you are autistic as fuck and the fact that you will always deny this and rationalize your social failures like "I don't care if people like me. I just want them to use reasoning and logic. " and be forever unhappy is hilarious to me

>> No.3763394

>>3763344
Talent isn't entirely subjective. I've already went over this.

>world's fastest runner in 100m is talented. at running 100m.
Not an opinion, it is fact.
>opinion is entirely subjective
If that is true, that is an entirely subjective opinion on opinions being entirely subjective. I can have an opinion that opinions are not entirely subjective and, by your reasoning, I am correct.

>> No.3763401

>>3763383
>poking holes in the basic premise

If I said, "Given that Santa lives at the North Pole, and that the North Pole is cold, Santa lives in a cold place," you would then start picking at the assumption that Santa lives at the North Pole?

>>3763384

I don't think anyone's pretending anything. They genuinely believe.

>> No.3763403

>>3763369
You do not understand what I am pointing out.
This is the music thing all over again...

>> No.3763404

>>3763401

If I was supposed to argue with it, sure. Because everything else in that one is trivial.

>> No.3763407

>>3763394
>If that is true, that is an entirely subjective opinion on opinions being entirely subjective. I can have an opinion that opinions are not entirely subjective and, by your reasoning, I am correct.

But it's not an entirely subjective opinion. It's a fact.

You're right in saying that talent isn't subjective, but that depends on how you measure it.

"Musical talent" as in the abstract ability to organise sounds is subjective.
"Musical talent" as in the ability to play an instrument at x notes per second and have it conform to some arbitrary standard is not subjective, but then it just comes down to how you limit the performance.

Using the right set of standards you can easily argue that Kesha is a great musician. If you argue from YOUR standards (even if they reflect the general population), then sure you can say Kesha is objectively bad by those standards - but so what? What does that prove? Nothing.

>> No.3763413

>>3763401
>I don't think anyone's pretending anything. They genuinely believe.

I'm starting to think that too.

Look, I don't agree with everything you've said, but the idiots in this thread have ruined the entire discussion. Cya.

>> No.3763414

>>3763404

As in the arrogance argument. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, consider it like this:

A true claim (fact) is not arrogant.
That A is smarter than B is a true claim (how this is known is irrelevant).
That A is smarter than B is therefore not arrogant.

>> No.3763418

>>3763379
I'm surprised no one else caught that yet. Yeah, my grammar isn't the greatest, but I'm working on it.

>>3763392
>and be forever unhappy
I am very happy. I don't find happiness solely from other people's acceptance of me.
>social failures
Define social failures.
>hilarious to me
Weird sense of humor.

>> No.3763419

>>3763414
And just to add to that, here's a definition of arrogant:

> Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

It's not an exaggeration if it's true.

>> No.3763420

>>3763414

How it is known that (A is smarter than B is a true claim) is irrelevant in the same way that how it is known that (Santa lives at the North Pole) is irrelevant.

>> No.3763426

>>3763419

Webster says: "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

You can make entirely true statements in an overbearing manner and come across as an arrogant fuck.

>> No.3763427

>>3763392

Here's a PROTIP for you: if your happiness relies entirely on success in social endeavours, those whose happiness does not will ultimately be far happier than you.

>> No.3763432

>>3763426

And Oxford says:

The taking of too much upon oneself as one's right; the assertion of unwarrantable claims in respect of one's own importance; undue assumption of dignity, authority, or knowledge; aggressive conceit, presumption, or haughtiness.

Note the emphasis on "unwarrantable claims."

OED > Webster's

>> No.3763439

>>3763426
The majority of definitions include that the individual's claims are unwarranted. See Oxford.

>> No.3763440

>>3763426

You can also make entirely true statements in an non-overbearing manner and not come across as an arrogant fuck. Thus, it's only arrogance if you're a dick about it.

>> No.3763444

>>3763432
>aggressive conceit, presumption, or haughtiness.

It's still in there. There's more than one way to be arrogant.

>> No.3763451

>>3763444
And you can say that you are smarter than someone else (assuming you had proof) without doing any of those things.

>> No.3763452

>>3763439

The majority of definitions go:
1. "Make unwarranted claims to show your superiority."
2. "Be a dick about your claims to show your superiority."
3. "Any combination of the above."

>> No.3763459

>>3763452
Exactly. And you can claim to be better at things than another without being a dick or making unwarrented claims.

>> No.3763463

>>3763451

Yes, in theory. In practice, there is, as it has been said, no objective metric.

>> No.3763471

>>3763407
The point of Kesha was saying that she wasn't talented. If someone is fine listening to her even if she isn't talented, that is fine. What I don't like is when people say she is as talented as ___ and then say they don't need reasoning because it's opinion. Talent needs reasoning, even if talent is judged

>> No.3763480

>>3763471
OK. I see what you're saying.

People saying she is talented without actually judging her by any standards, simply because they enjoy her.

Then yes, that's stupid.