<p>In arguments, I weigh each side carefully and pick apart its premises for close analysis. Then I decide which side I think is correct. Sometimes it’s somewhere in the middle or closer to one side. In fact I rarely agree with one side absolutely. However, no matter what I think is correct, I always think I’m right. Is this okay?</p>
<p>If it’s a matter of opinion, of course you’re gonna think a certain view you hold is right. It would only become an issue if your opinion was based off of an incorrect fact in which case you should be receptive.</p>
<p>Yea, but having dog’s breath is even worse.</p>
<p>I think we might be twins because I do the same thing</p>
<p>@dfree:Eh, it has its pros and cons.</p>
<p>Sounds like you have the methodology down right. Make sure the facts are solid and the logic is without flaw, and listen to others in case they find mistakes. Otherwise, you are right.</p>
<p>I think it’s okay too. The close analysis part is the important thing. </p>
<p>Why might you feel more convinced then maybe you should be? I would say it is maybe due to being told to be more convinced than you would naturally be. at least for the essays I wrote, the teachers always wanted grand thesis and big statements, and shunned expressed uncertainty.</p>
<p>Jimbo, you worry me a bit with the being right talk. Maybe by right you mean - then you have the right to be proud of your argument because you have been as right as you could be. Then I’m sort of less worried, but most people are as right as they can be.</p>
<p>There is no reason to treat with harsh skepticism conclusions reached from clearly defined axioms through rigorous logic. Such a conclusion can be, for all purposes, treated as a truth. If someone pokes a hole in the logic or advances a more testably accurate axiomatic foundation, then there comes a need to reevaluate. Until then, there is nothing closer to the truth that can be attained individually, i.e., one is correct enough to remove qualifiers (e.g., I’m pretty sure, I believe, I think) from internal monologue. This, I define as right. When presenting an argument, then, the only qualifiers necessary are found in a clear articulation of the axiomatic structure and process of logic leading to the result– and this construction is necessary in any honest argument, anyway.</p>
<p>I do the exact same thing!!!</p>
<p>Depends. Are you always right?</p>
<p>I am always right.</p>
<p>You guys sound like my mom</p>
<p>I’ts completely natural to think you’re always right.</p>
<p>seriously??</p>
<p>…<strong>…
…,-~<em><code>¯lllllll</code></em>~,…
…,-~<em><code>lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯</code></em>-,…
…,-~<em>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll</em>-,…
…,-<em>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll… …
…;</em><code>lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~~-,llllllllllllllllllll…
…\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/…;;;;llllllllllll,-</code>~-,… …
…\lllllllllllllllllllll,-<em>…<code>~-~-,…(.(¯</code></em>,<code>,…
…\llllllllllll,-~…)_-…</code><em>;…)…
…,-</em><code>¯,</code>)…,-~<em>~................/..................... ..................|/.../.../~,......-~</em>,-~<em>;…/…
…/…/…/…/…,-,…</em>~,.<code>~……
…|…/…/…/.</code>…)…)¯<code>~,…
…|./…/…/…)…,.)</code><em>~-,…/…|…)…~-,............. ..............././.../...,</em><code>-,.....</code>-,...<em><code>....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯</code>``</em>~-,,,, ...............(..........)<code>*~-,....</code><em>.,-~</em>.,-<em>…|…/…/…/…
…</em>-,…<code>*-,…</code>~,…<code>.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........ ...................*,.........</code>-,...)-,..............,-<em>…,-</em>…(<code>-,…
…f</code>-,…-,/...*-,</strong>_,,-~<em>....,-</em>......|...-,…</p>
<p>^■■■■■!!!</p>
<p>Anyway does out opinion really matter? Whatever we say you already have your opinion and obviously you are very firm in your case.</p>