You are right as it's all about what each individual thinks (in terms of what bothers them or doesn't bother them in regards to a show). I just get aggravated by the constant nit-picky critique of shows. And what REALLY aggravates me is people saying that because of these nit-picky reasons, the show is not GOAT. BB is the best show I've ever seen and I've seen a lot of shows. It seems as thought a lot of people feel that way. Therefore, it IS one of the GOAT shows. The only way to measure GOAT is by the opinions of those that watched it.

Iggy's reasons why he didn't like the last few seasons are the extreme minority. Cool that you and him feel that way but that means absolutely nothing in terms of ranking it as one of the GOAT.

That's a very reasonable response and I can't argue with it if it works for you. It still must suck to watch TV with your so called "brain on" as you are going to be unsatisfied more often than not.

Everyone's opinion on a piece of art is legitimate; they just aren't of equal weight.

I disagree completely. But we'll just go around in circles if we open up that can of worms again.

Goodie, it doesn't go around in circles, once you correctly understand what the conclusions from your premises are.

If society consisted of 10 mentally ******ed people who think that a framed piece of poo is the greatest work of art of all time, vs 5 intellectually capable people who do not think so, then who is right? Is that piece of **** actually the greatest work of art of all time, over the greatest works of Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Monet, Picasso, Van Gogh, Dali, Cezanne, etc?

If society only consisted of 15 people and 10 people thought that the frame of poo is better than all the other art, and 5 people disagreed, in THAT society, the framed poo would be more highly regarded as better art because the majority thinks so. Can't imagine how's that ambiguous.

I just think it's a bit odd that you've camped down on the word 'quality'*, attached a (contextual) definition to it--net (or average) enjoyment by the audience**--and aggressively beaten off all alternative meanings with a stick.

Net (or average) enjoyment is a perfectly deece metric, sure, but what in your humble opinion is so bad about all of the more esoteric value systems, the ones whereby all opinions don't carry equal weight?

Why can't they coexist in parallel with your favored system?

Taking this to the meta level, why doesn't our opinion carry the same weight as yours, on this particular subject?

I would like to understand your position.


*ETA: To the uninitiated, this is a reference to a previous discussion.

**Or whatever it is.

I'll answer the last question first. I don't believe the measuring of quality in TV/Movie/Music is an opinion. I believe the only way to measure that quality is by measuring the opinions of everyone that has partaken in the specific movie/show/song. I don't see how it can be measured any other way. If we all agreed on what the factors were that made a movie/show/song good, then we could measure based on those factors. But we don't. People weigh certain factors above others. I don't care if every single thing makes perfect sense and is completely consistent with the character or what not. Others do. Why should my opinion carry less weight just because that piece of the show is not of particular importance to me?

So, at the end of the day, the overall opinions of those that partake is all we can use. And all that matters.

That's my stance.

See, now you're dancing around your position. Not just more "highly regarded as better art." That was given in my post, you're just re-stating that. I'm asking, in your position, then would the piece of **** ACTUALLY BE the greatest work of art of all time?

Assuming you're not just playing word games, the answer in your position would be yes. So then, if society were 10 mentally handicapped people who think that **** is GOAT + 20 normal people who think that the Sistine Chapel (or whatever) is GOAT, then Sistine Chapel is GOAT. Then if 15 of those normal people die, then suddenly the POS is GOAT.

In other words, your position entails that nothing can actually BE the GOAT, it can only be regarded as the GOAT. And if nothing can actually BE the GOAT, then everything you are saying is nonsensical and meaningless and doesn't matter, and you shouldn't be tarding up this thread.

So bottom line, can you somehow make sense of these problems with your position, or can you just admit that it sucks balls?

Let me ask you this. How do YOU measure what the GOAT show is?

I'll respond to this post when you answer that.

Sure. I've already stated or implied it previously. Greatest directing, writing, acting, editing, sound, cinematography, etc. Great artistic achievement in those areas produces great emotion, characters, character development, story, tension, excitement, entertainment, social/human commentary/insight, etc.

Those things are what intelligent people debate, and how they form a conclusion as to what shows are GOAT.

Now, how about reconciling your position?

Okie dokie. So, you seem to understand that all of those factors are opinion based. Hence the word "debate" that you said intelligent people do. So, if they are opinion based, how do you come to the conclusion of what is the GOAT in each category? And furthermore, how do you decide what factors carry the most weight?

No. They are not all opinion based. I can explain this further, if you are not trolling, but this is a pretty basic position.

First, however, can you respond to the post that you said you would, and make some sense of your position. Because, as it stands, it is nonsensical.

Of course they are. You're telling me that there is a clear GOAT in every single category that you mentioned and that every intelligent person would agree? Why did you mention "debating" then?

Goodie, first things first. I can answer your questions. However, I posed you a question first, and you even said you would answer it if I answered your question. I was nice enough to do so, even though you should have answered first.

So please answer and make sense of your position. Or are you avoiding doing so, because you cannot?

We're done here. You've figured it out. No matter how you slice how you measure the GOAT, you're "way" or mine, it will always come down to measuring opinions. You must have figured it out that if you answered my question that's where you would arrive.

I win.

Lol, okay, so you cannot answer the question, and you cannot make sense of your own position.

Your position is meaningless, and you don't even understand it. Your posts should obviously be ignored, but it can be fun to engage occasionally, just to see how poorly you fare.

The broader reason I've engaged in this, is that several other posters, even some with intelligent views, seem to be veering closer to Goodie's position than perhaps they would care to admit. And somebody needs to point out the wrongness of the position, or it makes everything itt meaningless, when it is not.

U sure?

Yes. (As long as you're not being nitty with the use of 'clear' here.)

No. I mean, there is an objective best move at any point in a midgame of chess, but that doesn't mean that every grandmaster would agree. (This is not to quibble over the definition of 'objective', but to show that even if an objective answer is out there, that doesn't automatically mean everyone will agree.)

Because the debate itself is of some worth, and the exchange of ideas is almost always a good idea. We might even be able to come to a consensus!

Name them. Because I guarantee that you get an argument from a ton of people on your "list" of GOAT in directing, writing etc...

Guess why? Because that opinion is SUBJECTIVE and it's exactly that, an opinion.

YOU are not the authority of GOAT in the area of TV Shows and neither is any other one person. That's why it needs to be a collective effort as I've suggested. And every single opinion matters the same. Because everyone values different parts of the factors.

I'm not sure I can be any more clear in my position. And no one has come even close to refuting my views (basically because they are the only logical determination that can be made).

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension. I said that there *is* a GOAT in any particular category, not that I could (or felt qualified) to name them. Similarly, I wouldn't feel qualified to pick the best move in a mid-game between two chess grandmasters, despite there being an objective (and possibly unknowable) best move. Also, I wouldn't be worried that disagreement between grandmasters on this particular position means that a best possible move doesn't exist—what a foolish conclusion that would be!

With that said, I'm going to cut the conversation short. Judging by your last sentence, you've obviously dug your heels in and there's no point in either of us wasting our time.

Cheers.

Usually when someone says there IS a GOAT of something, they typically know what the GOAT is. Can you tell me where I would find this phantom universal GOAT list in each category? Have you seen it or is it like the holy grail, it only exists in your thoughts?

C'mon man, challenge me a little if you're going to get into this discussion with me.

...

It's funny that one by one, everyone that engages in this conversation with me eventually just stops answering my questions or concedes they don't want to talk about it anymore. Maybe the next one will take the proper avenue and just admit that I'm right (since I clearly am) instead of the childish behavior you and others have exhibited.

Fingers crossed.

Still waiting on that.

This is a limitation of your own knowledge, brah.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong about the populist equal-weighting method you so bullheadedly endorse (let's call it system #1). But if a group of people get together and codify a value system in which elements {E₁ ... E_n} are what matter (call it system #2)--and it just so happens that every single opinion doesn't carry the same weight within this system, because one needs special knowledge in order to understand and evaluate those elements--what exactly is so jimmy-rustling about that? Why can't systems #1 and #2 coexist peacefully?