DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Beerinkol** · 01-13-2006, 07:00 AM

kr:

"As stated, your opinion differs from my mine - which to me is fine. However, the reason I started a response in the first place was a veiled belttling of opinions who might hold thier favorite MDs as geniuses because it may not agree with someone else's evaluation of the same."

As I already said my intention is to enlarge the scope of the term genius. Let's not get into belittling of opinions and the like, you're belittling my opinions as much as I'm yours. This exaggerated sensitivity about one's opinions is ridiculous. I've no fanatical investment in my opinions, I aim to observe the real world and constantly re-evaluate my thoughts.

Regarding you disagreeing with me, of course you already indicated that several times. That fact does not necessarily cause me sleepless nights. My links were posted for a certain community who share similar ideas about genius.

"With regard to the 60 miniutes and shows like that, I have first hand experience of how to place stories, manipulate them etc. If you think you hear facts in these shows, i could only hope you get a chance to learn how these things work, With regard to the website of Jullian"

This one is funny, having carried out the usual strategy of attacking and questioning your opponent's source, you throw in the phrase "not really a objective source" for good measure. What would constitute an "objective source"? Any opinion, award, article can always be refuted as the writer's subjective opinion, or the reporter's biased take, or the site's marketing tactic. The opinion of posterity might possibly qualify as an "objective source", but we'll all be long gone by then. In the meantime, no one is stopping you from declaring the achievements of your idol as world-class genius, and the achievements of all others as mere marketing.

01-13-2006, 07:00 AM	#10
Beerinkol Join Date Dec 2006 Posts 5,268 Senior Member	kr: "As stated, your opinion differs from my mine - which to me is fine. However, the reason I started a response in the first place was a veiled belttling of opinions who might hold thier favorite MDs as geniuses because it may not agree with someone else's evaluation of the same." As I already said my intention is to enlarge the scope of the term genius. Let's not get into belittling of opinions and the like, you're belittling my opinions as much as I'm yours. This exaggerated sensitivity about one's opinions is ridiculous. I've no fanatical investment in my opinions, I aim to observe the real world and constantly re-evaluate my thoughts. Regarding you disagreeing with me, of course you already indicated that several times. That fact does not necessarily cause me sleepless nights. My links were posted for a certain community who share similar ideas about genius. "With regard to the 60 miniutes and shows like that, I have first hand experience of how to place stories, manipulate them etc. If you think you hear facts in these shows, i could only hope you get a chance to learn how these things work, With regard to the website of Jullian" This one is funny, having carried out the usual strategy of attacking and questioning your opponent's source, you throw in the phrase "not really a objective source" for good measure. What would constitute an "objective source"? Any opinion, award, article can always be refuted as the writer's subjective opinion, or the reporter's biased take, or the site's marketing tactic. The opinion of posterity might possibly qualify as an "objective source", but we'll all be long gone by then. In the meantime, no one is stopping you from declaring the achievements of your idol as world-class genius, and the achievements of all others as mere marketing.
	Quote