A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

[SSC]

Well Nathan's arguments seem to have a whole lot more weight than yours. Degrading to personal attacks to the other side? Tsk tsk. Not a goot idea to look credable.

g'huh?

I wasn't even talking about his arguments and I actually agreed with the scraggy he was saying if you bothered to read my last post in this thread.

Learn to read. :>

[SSC]

STOP. BUMPING. THIS. THREAD.

Please! please! Please! We all agree with eachother and let's just let it die. ;_;

[EldKatt]

[Nathan Madsen]

Gee, I wonder WHY you'd think that would be taken as an insult. It wasn't addressed at me and I found it absolutely unnecessary. Why the hell did you have to go there?

This last section reads like so: "Listen kid, I know more than you."

It may read like that you to, however if you read deeper you'll see that I'm actually saying to anyone (regardless of age) to be open to the idea you may need to learn more, that you may not know everything. Do I know more than this 18 year old? Probably about certain things and he may know more about other things than I. I'm not trying to come off as a know it all which is why I stated: Heck, I'm 29 and still feel I have so much to learn about many things. While much of what I've said may be my opinion, it is important to realize those opinions are based on my experiences and what I've been taught. There is some foundation there. I think some posters on here get an attitude that they're right and that they know more than others. I hope I don't do that. I'm trying not to do that.

You're not impressing anyone. However, I have nothing to say against your arguments (I think) but even so the last point was stupid and unnecessary.

Not trying to impress anyone. If I were, you'd see my entire resume posted in great detail. I'm not worried about that. I was, however, listing some of my credentials to show that I've taken the time to study, invest and practice my profession: music. Because of this, my opinions or statements should carry more weight than someone who hasn't studied or isn't trained. That's all.

So, heads up, either your arguments are good or they aren't, it doesn't matter how many degrees you have, how old you are, or whatever other bonus scraggy you care to mention. For all I care, a 10 year old can out-argue you and that's fine, if the arguments are reasonable and sound. Not saying this is the case here, but I make no distinction.

If degrees don't matter when in an argument (or in any discussion) then does education not matter either? That's all a degree really is: a visible symbol of the training and education you've completed. So if a 10 year old could out argue me, how are they doing this? Are they using their knowledge? Are you really going to say an average 10 year will know just as much as an average 29 year old? Wow. I wouldn't make that kind of statement. My point is this: education and credentials do matter. They make a huge difference. Who are you going to pay more attention to:

Junior in college studying film

or

Steven Speilberg discussing film?

To say the degrees and credentials don't mean anything and don't make a difference in an argument (in my humble opinion) is absurd. Then why do any of us go to school, take lessons and print up resumes when going for jobs?

Besides, dead thread is dead.

It was dead until Nik Mikas posted this morning stating various questions and being rather insulting to me directly. Which is why I responded.

[SSC]

To say the degrees and credentials don't mean anything and don't make a difference in an argument (in my humble opinion) is absurd. Then why do any of us go to school, take lessons and print up resumes when going for jobs?

Degrees and credentials DON'T mean anything in an argument. They're just papers, really. What matters is what you're saying and the evidence that supports your argument, etc. Having no credentials doesn't mean you can't make good arguments, build up evidence and support your opinions. I won't just "believe" anyone because they have credentials. They have to make a good case, support their opinion, ETC just like anyone else and they can be as well wrong, like anyone else. Why make the distinction, then?

In fact, the only reason to get a degree is to hang it on your wall and put it in your resum

[Nathan Madsen]

What matters is what you're saying and the evidence that supports your argument, etc. Having no credentials doesn't mean you can't make good arguments, build up evidence and support your opinions.

Agreed- but having more knowledge usually helps you make a better case, no?

I won't just "believe" anyone because they have credentials. They have to make a good case, support their opinion, ETC just like anyone else and they can be as well wrong, like anyone else. Why make the distinction, then?

Not asking you to believe someone just because they have credentials. I wouldn't either. I completely agree with your comment above- a good, solid case needs to be made first. Can this happen with no credentials? Sure. However, I think you're more likely to make a strong case using the knowledge you learned from those degrees and such. That is my point and the reason why I listed some of my credentials- to show that I have some foundation and reasoning behind my stance. I think I've been very clear on this.

In fact, the only reason to get a degree is to hang it on your wall and put it in your resum

[Voce]

Good sir, the thread that you have just posted in was meant to die, and would if you would stop posting in it. Thus, we reach the conclusion that all of us should stop posting in said thread.

[Voce]

lol bump.

[Tokkemon]

This thread will never die.

I wanna see the rest of the fight!

[SSC]

What fight? I have nothing else to say. :>

[Nathan Madsen]

lol bump.

Hahahahaha! Voce, this just made me laugh aloud!

[Zetetic]

This was too tempting...

Split infinitive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia