Author Topic: Nickpb starfish for no real reason  (Read 11357 times)

OP is known for being the definition of cancer.
/nosupport


the imo thing has to do with rhetoric and not the individual's appeal

totally repeating what trinick said p much but
typically, if you directly highlight that a statement is a claim of personal value (e.g. "In my honest opinion, toasters should have never been invented."), the statement itself has a lesser "impact" than if you were to make the statement alone (e.g. "Toaster should have never been invented."). of course, the credibility of a claim is only as good as the details supporting it.


OP is known for being the definition of cancer.
/nosupport

You could say this is a drama that cancer wrote about chemotherapy.

If I may dispute this, wouldn't the strength of the statement also have to do with the credibility of the person saying, more so in regards to opinion?

For example, a married straight christian priest could say, "Homoloveuality is wrong," or a man who has been involved in many homoloveual relationships could turn around and say "Homoloveuality is wrong" on the premise of experience.  Again, referring to your assertion that perception is irrelevant to objectivity, the person closest to objectivity that would merit a more credible answer would be the latter.

So yes, an anonymous person on the internet would not carry much power, but the "IMO tag" on things shouldn't automatically make statements weak.

Sure! The credibility of the person making the statement does have a very large impact on the strength of the statement. However, so does the "IMO" tag. In both cases, adding "I think" before the statement still weakens the effect of the statement. This is because when it's declared as a statement, regardless of the persons credibility, your brain evaluates it as fact. It then checks that fact and if you don't respect the person you probably go "Yeah, right." but it still evaluates as fact at first. When someone says "I think" before their statement, the fact your brain evaluates is that they think the statement is fact, not that the statement is fact. You're then left to decide on your own if you think that is fact, which weakens the statement because the only reason you'd corroborate them is if you think they are credible.


>trying this hard
>>

:cookie:
Hi tri has told me much about u good sir

Sure! The credibility of the person making the statement does have a very large impact on the strength of the statement. However, so does the "IMO" tag. In both cases, adding "I think" before the statement still weakens the effect of the statement. This is because when it's declared as a statement, regardless of the persons credibility, your brain evaluates it as fact. It then checks that fact and if you don't respect the person you probably go "Yeah, right." but it still evaluates as fact at first. When someone says "I think" before their statement, the fact your brain evaluates is that they think the statement is fact, not that the statement is fact. You're then left to decide on your own if you think that is fact, which weakens the statement because the only reason you'd corroborate them is if you think they are credible.
Thanks for your input!

Hi tri has told me much about u good sir
hopefully they were good things :iceCream:

hopefully they were good things :iceCream:
He said u had a big weiner :o




How does one hear text?
every time someone says something like this i just feel like turning my pc off for a day or fifty

How does one hear text?
congratulations on your stellar discovery, smartass. want a cookie?

every time someone says something like this i just feel like turning my pc off for a day or fifty
congratulations on your stellar discovery, smartass. want a cookie?
I'm pretty sure that was a joke, nothing to get buttblasted over