[CoolNard]

Originally Posted by HikoSeijuro

You are interpreting someone's question based on your personal paradigm on life as being the paradigm that everyone sees through and then assuming that this interpretation is fact. It might be, it might be just your interpretation, but the very fact you said "I believe" now shows this is a feeling and NOT empirical data.

I didn't say what I thought this thread to be was empirical data. My paradigm, my assumptions, my opinions, my perspectives, my hypothesis, my theory - yes, they're mine, I've already told you that I have a right to post my opinions and that I was posting them, avoiding trespassing into prohibition. But the point I was making, that you ignited, is that this thread's question is rhetorical and paradoxical, even the OP suggests that; go read it. If you're speaking about my rights, then it was and is my right, as a member and a mod, to tell you and remind you. Oh, and I didn't say "nobody should have answered it", go read that part, too.

Originally Posted by HikoSeijuro

"It's not a feeling, it's knowledge I've gained after various discussions on similar concepts. ... which is the reason I think there is no such thing as a complete hater."
I see no factual statements here. I guess someone reading your statements is just supposed to assume that you, as well as the people you have had 'various discussions' with, are experts on the subject. This issue has nothing to do with whether or not there can be someone who loves everything or hates everything but that you are taking your personal belief, assuming it is true (regardless of how obvious it may seem to be true), and then passing it off as true while also asking people to communicate using empirical data. I see no empirical data.

This issue has everything to do with the thread topic, because without that, I wouldn't be using that as a basis to defend myself against your fallacies. I don't need to use empirical data with common knowledge. Going by standard definitions, to hate or love everything is simply rhetorical and paradoxical, unless you require the extra service of me using those orthodox definitions to articulate every single example, metaphor and anecdote, of a balanced span of scenarios and semantics, to prove the facts. Again (with my justifications in my previous post), I don't just ask "people to communicate using empirical data."

Originally Posted by HikoSeijuro

A)
I rest my case on how you've wrongly accused me, but I won't blame you; my post was quite lengthy, after all. I agree with you that sharing opinions, experiences, etc can be good, but as you have already justified for me, "as long as we realize that they are in fact these". That in itself is a fact.
B)
Stick to facts and logical calculations, when addressing the masses, who aren't your personal penpal. No matter how you relay that information, facts are empirical and can't be subjective.

Paragraph A) seems to imply that opinions and experiences can be viewed as a "fact" but then this would contradict your statement in paragraph B) that facts are empirical and can’t be subjective. If you are wondering how? Opinions and experiences are subjective.

Okay, I should have elaborated, although I thought it was grammatically clear and that you'd fall asleep reading it. The fact, that I was referring to in the first quote, is the fact that they are only opinions, and not necessarily factual. I understand it may be a mouthful to comprehend at first glance, but I basically paraphrased you, although I did not tweak your sentence in any manner; I'm surprised you'd misunderstand your own points.

Originally Posted by HikoSeijuro

Speaking on giving reading advice perhaps it's good to get into re-reading your previous posts. Please don't think it's a snide remark, said condescendingly, or in a berating type of manner...I am just kind hearted and caring like you were being when you said you don't blame me for having trouble understanding your previous post because of the length! It was such a long post full of so many words!

Thanks, Hiko - can I call you that? I'm not as mad and long-winded a person as you're probably making me out to be, and reading your other unrelated posts, I figured you're a nice, reasonable guy. I just loathe being misunderstood, when I say what I have to say, and so get pretty defensive & verbal. I don't need to re-read my own comments because I know what I said, and evidently, I could correct your interpretations here.

EDIT: GoNative, sorry to turn your thread into an argument, hope you don't mind. If there's anything you wanna say prior to this, feel free to.