Given the facts of what exactly is and is not opinion, your statement makes little sense.
An opinion has to contain some reasonable knowledge of a subject which represents that subject accurately, otherwise its not truly an opinion at all. Its just blind prejudice.
You may call it prejudice, and in some circumstances you may be right.
What does my number of posts have to do with my knowledge of science or whether or not I have dealt with him before? It doesn’t.
His sources, as I already explained, and so you must already know, are invalid - they are not authentic sources by any stretch of the imagination. I could not have gotten away with using his “sources” when I was in 5th grade, so I see no reason to accept them here. This hearkens back to the necessity of a standard.
But he is not trying to express an opinion. If he were, you would be right - he is free to express his opinion. But he is trying to claim an absolute fact, not express an opinion. Furthermore, even an opinion can be wrong. It is the opinion of many that the Catholic Church is an evil institution bent on world domination and dragging every man, woman, and child down to hell with them. That is an opinion - and it is wrong, and those with correct knowledge have an obligation to correct their error.
Why do you think I’ve been suggesting over and over that you guys actually formally study the subject? So as to make yourselves informed.
It depends. If you want your opinion to be respected by intelligent people, then you have to show them that it is informed by reason and evidence. If you was in a towns square saying to all the white people that black people are sub-human, i would hope that people didn’t just accept your opinion as scientifically valid as if it was something you are entitled to say when you feel like it. You are not entitled to blind prejudice.
On the contrary, the number of posts gives us a direct indication of your experience dealing with any given poster here.
Great. I suggest you show this.
I will leave that to be refuted by others.
It’s not a matter of me thinking they do not measure up. they are literally on par with a 5th grade report on monkeys. I remember trying to use similar sources in the past and having my teacher reject them and fail me. There are standards for sources - rules, regulations, policies - and your “sources” meet none of them. They’re not even bottom of the barrel. They’re just plain not valid sources.
Categorically trashing the sources is bogus because you do not think they measure up. :banghead:
I suggest you go pick a few that don’t measure up and we will discuss.
So I am to be placed in the position of defending racists.:yawn:
This is a post by hecd mind you. Read it carefully, especially the bolded part.
Not at all. If I have 450 posts and 200 of them were spent in conversation with him, while another user has 20,000 posts and 5 of his were spent in conversation with him, I have more experience dealing with him than the poster with 20,000 posts.
I did not claim a great deal of knowledge of the poster. I claimed that in my interactions with him on this subject (which should have been a given), he has always acted the same.
I already did.
No. First of all, this is, as I already explained, the method of diversion he is attempting to use - get me to provide my sources so he can criticize them in the hopes that I forget about his. I am not that stupid. In addition, his “sources” are so far off so as not to be addressed by experts. You might as well ask for a source directly arguing against the idea that 2+2=22. Who would bother to write that?
You’re right, it wouldn’t be a problem, if, as I have already explained multiple times, the request for my sources were not simply an attempt to divert things on to me.
Defended by what? A couple of non-experts writing what amounts to little more than an opinion piece with citations that, more often than not, ultimately say the exact opposite of what they claim.
Apparently you missed his intent with that post. He was posing an argument against you. He was attempting to point out that these experts in no way support the claims made by the writers of the article, which is something I already knew and already informed you of.
I will take a defense from sources then no defense anytime.
It would vary from subject to subject and the magnitude, for lack of a better word, of the claim being made, as well as it’s level of acceptance by experts in the field. If you’re trying to tell me what the first law of thermodynamics is, five minutes on google is easily enough education. If you want to explain m-theory, a bit more education would be needed. And if someone is trying to upset the applecart - reverse the current scholarly understanding of something, it’s going to require a rather large amount of well defined, extremely detailed, supporting evidence.
It’s not ad hominem. This is something else I already explained - ad hominem is insulting your opponent directly. Calling you and idiot, for example, would be an ad hominem attack. Explaining why a source is invalid is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
That is exactly what I said in my comment in the very same post. Did you read it?
I stand corrected.
Given your demonstrated understanding of ad hominem arguments, can you explain why this would not qualify?
That will be sad news to Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître the Catholic priest who developed the theory.