thearmourofGod is entitled to his opinion that opinions can be true or false and to think otherwise is to be illogical. Though stating "to think that ones opinions cant be incorrect is a basic lack of logic" leaves no room for debate and reflects badly on thearmourofGod's willingness to try and comprehend the reasoning behind opposing views even if he could be correct. I don't blame him since this never started out as a respectful debate but rather just trying to "1up" each other on who is "correct". Ommamar is entitled to his opinion that thearmourofGod is being egotistical through stating his opinion and that opinions are not provably true or false.
I don't really expect anyone to want to dive into a real discussion at this point among all the baseless insults between two people who barely know each other on the internet, but it gives me a chance to look into this more due to my personal interest.
I might've been mistaken in separating "false statements" from being classified as opinions after considering this though it's overall just semantics: https://medium.com/@jason.richardsonwhite/why-opinions-can-be-true-or-false-and-why-it-matters-8180e4b16017
I could accept that some opinions can be proven true or false as opposed to my previous post where I wasn't considering them as opinions but rather as false statements since they can be objectively and directly quantified ("2+2 = 5" and so on).
I think I found the root of the misunderstanding:
the definition of an opinion is different between O and T
T believes opinions can be proven true or false
O, if he agrees with my initial assumption, believes that statements that can be objectively quantified as true or false do not qualify as opinions.
To see if O's opinion is an opinion that can be proven true or false we'd have to deconstruct the qualities of this opinion that are relevant. The article considers that the "relevant considerations have an independent, objective existence" that are not "made up by the person" will make a vague opinion as a whole (i.e. "Lincoln was the best president.") be proven true or false if these relevant objective qualities are present and accounted for. The issue with this is that the qualities that anyone considers relevant are biased, not necessarily universally agreed upon, and therefore subjective and it doesn't matter how many people are of the same opinion.
Despite this, If O is still here and is able to describe the individual objective qualities of his opinion, perhaps a better understanding would be reached even if the initial statement would still technically be subjective at the time it was made, if not then the opinion is subjective and not based on anything but emotion and would be in fact illogical though not objectively false. Subjectivity is illogical thearmourofGod.