Blink-182 [ARCHIVED] Band • Page 1087

Not worth the effort on a hungover Saturday. You are just wrong.

 

I've presented my argument and offered an explanation. You've offered nothing. Therefore, I'd say I'm winning this debate so far.

 

Technically opinions can't be wrong, even though I disagree strongly with this one.

 

We Stan A Reasonable King/Queen

 

*checks Fox News*

Yep, there are definitely opinions that are wrong.

 

This is true? Never noticed.

 

I mean, Tom was exceptional up through untitled...his vocals are very hard to replicate, especially his earlier songs where he was more nasally and higher pitched. Matt can't emulate that. However, it's silly for us to expect him to be perfect.

If you don't like Matt, who in the pop punk world would have been a better choice?

 

Let’s just relax.

 

I'm gonna be an old man here but any advice for improving filming during a show with my phone? I have an Android, Motorola g7. I definitely want to film all of going away, Adams song, dumpweed, and dammit.

 

Other people are posting snide comments in response to my post, tell them to relax. What made you think I'm not relaxed?

 

I have no idea. All I know is that I really don't like Matt Skiba.

 

That's fine to dislike him but make the discussion more interesting, give us an alternative

Sometimes I think Ryan from yellowcard would be good.

 

I don't have an alternative to give though, sorry lol

 

Yeah I'm talking more about general subjective opinions like what sounds good in music.

 

Anyone know if The Maine has vinyl?

 

You can very easily prove that wrong.

You'd still be wrong. Your acceptance of your wrongness doesn't mean you're not wrong.

You saying "I like Trump" would be an opinion.

 

Blink should have asked me to replace Tom, as I’ve already said I have experience with their catalogue from being in a high school pop punk band that covered “Untitled” often, but since they did not ask I’m fine with Matt in the role

 

If they replaced Tom with someone that sounded too much like him, I think that would have been almost worse. It woulda been trying to cover up for it. (Someone like Direct Hit's vocalist could probably do a good Tom impersonation, but no one woulda known who he is/accept him I bet. Having Matt be as known and respected as he was, helped with the transition.)

 

Matt was the perfect choice.

 

It all depends on how you state your opinion. If you say "Trump is my favorite president ever", you can't be proven wrong because that is entirely subjective, but if you say "Trump is the best president ever" you are stating your opinion as a fact, which can be debated and ultimately proven wrong.

 

When they announced Matt would be carrying the torch, I was fucking stoked. I thought "Matt's dark Alkaline Trio style mixed with Mark's dark +44 style, with Travis behind the kit sounds like perfection!"

Matt would have been best utilized if they were continuing down the Untitled/Neighborhoods/DED path. California was kind of a weird style for Matt, I think, especially because they were basically having him try to re-hash old Blink stuff, which he was never even a part of so it makes sense that that would be a little awkward.

I hope this new album really showcases Matt's style more. So far the singles have me excited.

 

That doesn't make sense though. If I were to say: "I Like Trump", that would be a lie, because I don't like Trump.

The easiest way I can explain this is--

Opinion: "____ is a bad President" because everyone's criteria for what is good and bad is different.

Fact: "____'s tax policies negatively affect the middle class" because this could be proven statistically with numbers and facts.

Fact: "I Like/Dislike _____" because there is only one correct answer for any person.

Now if you think that fact confirms the opinion, great, but that's given the assumption that having tax policies that benefit the middle class determines whether or not a president is "good", which is clearly not the main priority of all voters.

 

Yes, one of those is an opinion and one of those is not an opinion.

 

I didn't think you, personally, meant the other statements in your post as well. It was clearly a hypothetical.

This is just silly elementary stuff here.

You absolutely can use facts to show what a 'good' and 'bad' president is; it's what historians and poli sci nerds do. There are debates around the margins and disagreements (or, more like: there are no good presidents, they're just marginally less bad), but it's an argument based in facts and then using these facts to make your case. That entire case is the argument and debate. Without any of that, just saying some weird ass statement and pretending it can't be proven wrong or right, is just not true.

Stating something "is an opinion," when it is really just a factually untrue statement, and then hiding behind "it's just an opinion I can't be wrong" -- is silly middle school level debating.

 

But what I'm saying is that the criteria for what is "Good" & "Bad" changes relative to each individual person's perspective. That's what I'm trying to say. Opinions change depending on what facts are the most applicable to the person's values.

"An opinion is a statement the truth, the value of which may vary from person to person. For instance, the statement "Pizza is good" may be true when I say it, but my classmate who prefers burgers may opine the logical inverse, which is that "Pizza is not good". Both speakers are being truthful; since the scope of applicability of our respective opinions do not overlap, the statements do not conflict."