sphexx
Likes a dare
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I’ve added a like for you.Why could I only like this once
I’ve added a like for you.Why could I only like this once
By far the best comment on TP this year. Give that man a gold star.Just NO!
That's how we got anti-vaxers and flat-earthers
The trick is not to tell them they're wrong but to show them why they're wrong. Anything else just backs them into a corner and makes them more determined to spread their error. The Romans made the same mistake a couple of thousand years ago and look where it got us!Just NO! That's how we got anti-vaxers and flat-earthers
Infect them with polio? That's a little harsh. [emoji6]The trick is not to tell them they're wrong but to show them why they're wrong. Anything else just backs them into a corner and makes them more determined to spread their error. The Romans made the same mistake a couple of thousand years ago and look where it got us!
Just NO!
That's how we got anti-vaxers and flat-earthers
But are you questioning the validity of his opinion?. You could say all opinions may be valid but some are more valid than others ... but where does that leave us? I think everyone here probably agrees with your sentiment but maybe “valid” is the wrong word.That’s a bit of leap, no? We’re talking about subjective opinions of images with some basis given. I agree opinions held about anti-vax or flat earth that are not based on facts, while sincerely held by some, are not valid.
I'm not sure that counts as showing them they're wrong. Still: if it works for you...Infect them with polio? That's a little harsh. [emoji6]
Sorry :-(Well that was the most boring thing I'll watch this Christmas ... hopefully!
Infect them with polio? That's a little harsh. [emoji6]
I don’t think that worked with the current measles outbreak in Samoa where some people were still avoiding vaccination.I'm not sure that counts as showing them they're wrong. Still: if it works for you...
That’s a bit of leap, no? We’re talking about subjective opinions of images with some basis given. I agree opinions held about anti-vax or flat earth that are not based on facts, while sincerely held by some, are not valid.
Well ... it all depends on what you mean by ’flat’I really don't want to get into an epistemological debate on Christmas day (or most others, come to that) but I find myself unable to agree with the assumption contained in the adjective in "subjective opinions" and the even bigger assumption in the idea of flat earth being based on facts. Not even mathematics is based on facts; and it's very easy to prove that 2 + 2 DOESN'T equal 4. Seriously.
I personally don't believe in a flat earth, but the "facts" this opinion is based on are still subjective.
Sorry :-(
Hopefully, things can only get better now.
Well, it was me who was the OP, and me who obviously misjudged how people might react to it.Well it's hardly your fault
I'm coming at it from the point of view that in any field of human endeavour there is study, knowledge, learning and that someone who has taken the time to study the relevant literature and thinking, and for photography visited a wide range of exhibitions over many years, viewed at least all the classic photobooks etc. has a much more informed opinion than Mrs G and has such has a much more valid basis for giving crit.That’s a bit of leap, no? We’re talking about subjective opinions of images with some basis given.
Another view is that one person's opinion of "art" (whatever that is) has as much validity as anyone else's. At the end of the day all these discussions come down to your beliefs and biases and there really isn't much point in arguing....has a much more informed opinion than Mrs G and has such has a much more valid basis for giving crit.
Not even mathematics is based on facts; and it's very easy to prove that 2 + 2 DOESN'T equal 4. Seriously.
Well, it was me who was the OP, and me who obviously misjudged how people might react to it.
Well stop arguing thenand there really isn't much point in arguing
I've seen this parlour trick before and its really quite lame.
Changing the normally assumed context of the statement 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't disprove it. You would just be showing that it means something else in a different context. By assumed context I means that we normally assume the + means addition and that we are working in the base 10 (decimal) number system.
Regards...
FFS have I just stepped back to 1955?
That was tongue very firmly in cheek Phil
If only there was a way to show thatThat was tongue very firmly in cheek Phil
If only there was a way to show that
I always laugh at my own jokes, someone has to.Sometimes though, using an emoticon is akin to laughing at your own joke to emphasis it was meant to be hilarious
I always laugh at my own jokes, someone has too.
I run a gallery in the lake district on Keswick high street and Mrs G's comments are absolutely 100% typical of how landscape photography is consumed outside of non-photographers.
Yeah it's no surprise - it's like any other pastime or hobby, if you're not personally involved in it or only having a passing interest you're going to care little for the finer details of the craft itself. Customers I deal with who buy this stuff are more concerned with whether a print will match the wall colour or the room decor.Thomas Heaton responded to say that Mrs Gs views matched those of Mrs Hs
Yeah it's no surprise - it's like any other pastime or hobby, if you're not personally involved in it or only having a passing interest you're going to care little for the finer details of the craft itself. Customers I deal with who buy this stuff are more concerned with whether a print will match the wall colour or the room decor.
Surely it’s worth having a consumers point of view....
Plenty of people, same as any other form of photographyI've long wondered who buys landscape photographs and calendars of landscape photography.