Pepsi vs. Coke 5

[ZDamned]

One cleans puke for a living?

Yup, that is a difference between what they do, but does it make a difference in the person arguing the point of what we are talking about? A person is a person, and a title is a title. Background or not, I have spoken with many IT professionals who flat out have no idea what they are talking about in their own field of profession.

 

[InfestedLoli]

Alex, coke does not taste good. It is the programming of the matrix that is telling your body that coke tastes good. You aren't really drinking coke at all, but instead a sophisticated computer program.

 

[iKotomi]

People who are convinced that coke is better and pepsi makes them puke are tools. Rather than thinking about it rationally, they take popular opinion and personal dogma and trick themselves into thinking that two things that are pretty much exactly the same (at least not different enough that one causes gastric upheaval) are significantly different (good for coca-cola by the way, economically speaking, its absolutely brilliant).

People who believe that the earth is flat are tools. Rather than thinking about it rationally, they take popular opinion and personal dogma and trick themselves into thinking that if you try to swim from New York to Paris, you'll fall off the face of the planet. I'm not going to bother holding your hand through the argument that preferences are opinions. Any graduate from Harvard law should know that everything is an opinion.

What links both of them is that they both have an opinion that is defended only by the fact that they are free to have an opinion. There's nothing wrong with groundless opinions, but in general, its unscientific to have them, which was why I was pointing out a very obvious example of stupid groundless opinions.

Btw, analogies usually compare two different things...the point of them is to illustrate specific relationships or similarities that is more easily understood in one than the other.

 

[ZDamned]

People who are convinced that coke is better and pepsi makes them puke are tools. Rather than thinking about it rationally, they take popular opinion and personal dogma and trick themselves into thinking that two things that are pretty much exactly the same (at least not different enough that one causes gastric upheaval) are significantly different (good for coca-cola by the way, economically speaking, its absolutely brilliant).

People who believe that the earth is flat are tools. Rather than thinking about it rationally, they take popular opinion and personal dogma and trick themselves into thinking that if you try to swim from New York to Paris, you'll fall off the face of the planet. I'm not going to bother holding your hand through the argument that preferences are opinions. Any graduate from Harvard law should know that everything is an opinion.

What links both of them is that they both have an opinion that is defended only by the fact that they are free to have an opinion. There's nothing wrong with groundless opinions, but in general, its unscientific to have them, which was why I was pointing out a very obvious example of stupid groundless opinions.

Btw, analogies usually compare two different things...the point of them is to illustrate specific relationships or similarities that is more easily understood in one than the other.

So, by your whole point, an agnostic person enjoys all food equally. Be it watermelon, monkey brains, sugar, or feces. He has NO beliefs, and thus no opinions holding him to said personal dogma that leads him to believe that an apple tastes better than a dead raw tuna that had been molding for 2 weeks.

Like Alex.J said, your analogy sucks, get a new one. You are trying to link a subjective opinion with an objective "fact".

The taste of Coke versus the taste of Pepsi is NOT in any way measurable like the Clock Speed of a 3.2 GHz CPU versus a 533 MHz CPU.

Analogies compare different things with a like scenario, the scenario is what is WRONG with your analogy.

I like how you also say groundless opinion, as if having tasted both drinks, and coming to a conclusion no longer constitutes a grounds for making a choice. You are stating that Pepsi is just better with some magical measurement. If you can prove to me scientifically, without statistics that Pepsi is better, please present your evidence. ALL statistical taste tests don't count, because they are groundless opinions by your definition.

 

[iKotomi]

Belief that the earth is round is a subjective opinion. Belief that coke tastes better is a subjective opinion. The analogy was meant to illustrate how you shouldn't assume that your opinion is right just because you are allowed to have an opinion, whatever right means.

Note how I never said anything about how pepsi is better than coke (imo, they are both awful drinks and it is not interesting at all to determine which one tastes less bad). What I was attacking, if you can call it an attack, was your horrible method of argumentation, saying that coke is better because you think that pepsi makes you puke. That just indicates to me that you didn't actually try to objectively determine whether coke tastes better than pepsi (whatever that means) and rather, just fell back on personal dogma and popular opinion to come to your conclusion.

The way you argue is evidence enough for me that you are in fact, incapable of making an objective opinion at all. I would think it would take a much less scientific approach to determine the difference between apple and feces, then coke and pepsi, especially since you are entering the test with a bias.