High Tide Aquatics

Best reef read in a long time

S/he claims to not be making value judgements as to whether the behavior is right-or-wrong, but then goes on to claim that the behavior is based on flawed rationales, and that there is blame to be assigned. So on balance, I think the answer is yes.

EDIT:
I'm really not trying to say the author is a good/bad person for bringing all this up. Just pointing out that the whole debate is nothing new, and I hope they have something original to add to the conversation.
 
Gotcha.

While we are on the tangent, I think there is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a value judgement. I think the author goes out of their way to say they aren't claiming anyone is right or wrong for how they buy/sell/keep frags.
 
Thales said:
...I think there is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a value judgement...
Click to expand...
Not so sure I agree with that.
A value judgment is a statement weighted on the authors own personal belief system, so it sure seems like opinion to me.

Even a "scientific view", which is a pretty non-opinionated form of value judgment,
is based on consensus of scientific beliefs of the time. And consensus, right or wrong, is still opinion.
Of course, taken to the extreme, that means everything we say is opinion. Including the statements about value judgment.
Dontcha just love philosophy.
:)
 
h20player101 said:
Rygh, you don't subscribe to the philosopher king? :)
Click to expand...

Sure would be better than "You betcha"
:)

But no. Because I think that ideal is unfortunately humanly impossible.
The Soviet Union ending up with Stalin is the common example.
 
rygh said:
Thales said:
...I think there is a difference between expressing an opinion and making a value judgement...
Click to expand...
Not so sure I agree with that.
A value judgment is a statement weighted on the authors own personal belief system, so it sure seems like opinion to me.
Click to expand...

Sure but there has to be a difference between saying 'I think X is dumb' and 'X is dumb'. You can also say that 'X is dumb' without meaning that 'People who believe X are dumb',

Even a "scientific view", which is a pretty non-opinionated form of value judgment,
is based on consensus of scientific beliefs of the time. And consensus, right or wrong, is still opinion.
Of course, taken to the extreme, that means everything we say is opinion. Including the statements about value judgment.
Dontcha just love philosophy.
:)
Click to expand...

I do love it - thats why I have a degree in it!
 
An amusing observation is to compare the length and content
of the original article with this thread that it spawned.
8)
 
Rygh, I agree wholeheartedly! I am libertarian oriented in my politics, and Austrian in economics. The next omnipotent human being you meet will be the first.
 
Thales said:
Sure but there has to be a difference between saying 'I think X is dumb' and 'X is dumb'.
Click to expand...
Disagree. "Dumb" is an opinion/value judgment, not a provable fact (mostly).
So when you say "X is dumb", it is what you think, not a fact, so they are the same statement.
It would only be true is you said something like "A brick is hard"

Thales said:
You can also say that 'X is dumb' without meaning that 'People who believe X are dumb'
Click to expand...
Err yes/no.
I agree that in itself, it is a completely different statement. Sure.
However, it is easily transitive, especially since it is all about value judgments.
Basically. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
So if X is dumb, and people believe in X, then it logically equates that those people are dumb.

Now mathematically, that logic is messed up. But when it comes to people/values/and dumbness,
pretty easy to make that connection.
 
rygh said:
Thales said:
Sure but there has to be a difference between saying 'I think X is dumb' and 'X is dumb'.
Click to expand...
Disagree. "Dumb" is an opinion/value judgment, not a provable fact (mostly).
So when you say "X is dumb", it is what you think, not a fact, so they are the same statement.
It would only be true is you said something like "A brick is hard"
Click to expand...

In common usage they are not the same statement. 'X is dumb' is taken as a statement of fact, event though it shouldn't be. The 'I think' qualifier is often necessary to help avoid ruffled feathers.


Thales said:
You can also say that 'X is dumb' without meaning that 'People who believe X are dumb'
Click to expand...
Err yes/no.
I agree that in itself, it is a completely different statement. Sure.
However, it is easily transitive, especially since it is all about value judgments.
Basically. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
So if X is dumb, and people believe in X, then it logically equates that those people are dumb.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

The second statement doesn't follow the form of the A=B transitive you wrote.
It looks like you are going for Modus Ponens but you are missing part of the initial statement.
Or perhaps you are Affirming the Consequent.
Both can be valid in form, but unsound.

I can think X is dumb without thinking that you are dumb for thinking X. To bring it to the discussion, I can think one polyp frags are dumb, but not think you dumb for thinking one polyp frags are not dumb. Just because I think they are dumb doesn't mean you are, or I think you are dumb, for liking them. The addition of the 'I think' seems important.


Now mathematically, that logic is messed up.
But when it comes to people/values/and dumbness,
pretty easy to make that connection.
Click to expand...

But a mistake to make that connection which is why I think the qualifiers are important.
 
Joost_ said:
I don't get why people are getting so upset, maybe their offended? Its just a blog the guy felt like voicing his opinions. Although his arguments may not be completely solid, the post was done in a funny and entertaining way. If you don't think its funny, good for you. He/she isn't forcing you to read it or acknowledge his/ or her points. The author says so herself:
It isn’t my intention to say who is right or wrong or that one side is better than the other. It isn’t my goal to debase the value of these corals or the people who collect them. It is not a deep rooted dream to insult the speculators have added this new aspect to the hobby.
Click to expand...
Getting upset every time someone says something you don't agree upon on the internet would just drive you nuts.


How are his frag prices any different then the uber high end corals, fish and equipment Reef Builders posts about every day?
BAR tradionally has kept the vendor bashing next to nill. Such comments not only reflect poorly on the club, it makes the Sponsorship BOD roll much much harder. As some one that stepped up to the plate to do that job in the past I would hope you keep that in mind before posting such comments here on BAR.

Not to mention I had invited him out to BAYMAC.
Click to expand...
I have/had no intention putting down Jason Fox what so ever, and my post was made in a rather joking way. I greatly respect the guy, and all I was doing was ridiculing the common forum opinion of "rippoff Jason fox"
Click to expand...

Right, you know your own intention BUT the readers of your post might not. Read the bold part and take it to heart.

Joost_ said:
*cough* Jason Fox *cough*
Thanks for the link Rich!
Click to expand...

You don't see how that can be construed either as a joke, or as a bash? If you don't see it I highly suggest not doing it as people will read it both ways, even if you put a stupid little emicon in it.

Furthermore, since you are young and English is not your first language, the use of "good for you" as you used it is a common way of saying "well f' you".
 
Fwiw the correct and modern way to say the above is:

"your stupid"

Which neatly encapsulates the ideas that you think the person is stupid, you yourself as the source of the insult are stupid, and we're all students of the Internet together.

Not only is this thread longer than the blog post which isn't an article, it's also more interesting!
 
I think we are arguing slightly different points.
I will attempt to speak your language. Apologies in advance:

In Modus Ponens logic.
If P(person Y believes in dumb things) then Q(person Y is dumb)
If P(X is a dumb thing) then Q(believing in it is a dumb thing)
Then define:
P (X is dumb)
P (person Y believes in X)
That really DOES follow that person Y is dumb.

Sure adding "I think" is nice and friendly, and makes it obviously opinion.
But using the above logic, it simply turns it into "I think person Y is dumb".

So the "I think" does not actually help.
 
ahhh logic arguments, the silly ways which philosophers collect paychecks :D Having a modus ponus argument doesn't mean said logic is actually true.

...

so any timeline to when part two will emerge? :D
 
Ok Bry

If you owe money to the IRS, you'll get fined for not paying.

Hence the next time you owe money

You'll get fined :D

P then Q

P therefore Q

I know its silly
 
rygh said:
I think we are arguing slightly different points.
I will attempt to speak your language. Apologies in advance:

In Modus Ponens logic.
If P(person Y believes in dumb things) then Q(person Y is dumb)
If P(X is a dumb thing) then Q(believing in it is a dumb thing)
Then define:
P (X is dumb)
P (person Y believes in X)
That really DOES follow that person Y is dumb.
Click to expand...

Apologies accepted! That logic doesn't really work. :D
Sure adding "I think" is nice and friendly, and makes it obviously opinion.
But using the above logic, it simply turns it into "I think person Y is dumb".

So the "I think" does not actually help.
Click to expand...
 
sfsuphysics said:
Ok Bry

If you owe money to the IRS, you'll get fined for not paying.

Hence the next time you owe money

You'll get fined :D

P then Q

P therefore Q

I know its silly
Click to expand...
I get it now. It's fine not to pay :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top