No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

[1prophet]

Do you have evidence for this? If not its an unfounded claim.

Idiots are on both sides. Conservatives seem to be more proud of their beliefs, where as the left tries to pretend their views are backed by compassion.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

 

[pcgeek11]

The left is willing to evolve beliefs when they cannot be defended. The right doubles down on them. Nobody's perfect, but the right is the exact opposite of.

Bull Shit.

 

[BoberFett]

I can't wait to link back to this in the next thread about how awful GMO food is.

 

[alcoholbob]

The left is willing to evolve beliefs when they cannot be defended. The right doubles down on them. Nobody's perfect, but the right is the exact opposite of.

What about the left's belief that diversity is our greatest strength and yet everywhere you look in the world, diversity is one of the primary drivers of violent conflict? Are you claiming the left has no beliefs that aren't supported by evidence?

 

[Brian Stirling]

How would you like to argue about it?

This is sounding more and more like a Monty Python skit!


Brian

 

[MongGrel]

This is sounding more and more like a Monty Python skit!


Brian

No it isn't.

 

[UberNeuman]

That's a interesting article. Of course that's my opinion.

 

[MongGrel]

/the thread fails.

 

[Greenman]

You are entitled to your own opinion.

You're not entitled to your own set of facts.

If the "evidence" you cling to to support your opinion is baseless and withers in the face of real facts and evidence, then no, you deserve no consideration or attention.

That doesn't prevent you from holding invalid opinions. But don't expect to be treated as equals with those whose opinions can be substantiated.

If it can be substantiated it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[MagickMan]

I see a lot of new Progressives (today's ultra-conservatives) spreading this lately, even going so far as to tell others that they should be killed for their views (yay, Twitter). I can only say that your thought process is as fucked up as your ideology, not all people will (or even should) think alike, but you are entitled to your opinion. :\

 

[Moonbeam]

Certainly science has explained who <sic> some are logical and some defective in their thinking. Luckily that science was defeated by the United States, the Soviet Republic, and United Kingdom, and the Free French. Unfortunately under Western liberal thought these poisonous ideas must be freely tolerated, so they are regularly recycled by those with a burning need to believe themselves superior though sadly no qualifying ability to be so. Thus the Final Solution is continuously reproposed by those so limited as to imagine themselves as original.

As usual, of course, you turn the issue on it's head. It's the conservative brain dean who do not see they are Hitler all over again. The West will cheer their self generated destruction.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just because you have an opinion, does not make it fact!!

 

[realibrad]

I see a lot of new Progressives (today's ultra-conservatives) spreading this lately, even going so far as to tell others that they should be killed for their views (yay, Twitter). I can only say that your thought process is as fucked up as your ideology, not all people will (or even should) think alike, but you are entitled to your opinion. :\

It sounds like you missed what was being said in the original post. The teacher is saying that you can have subjective feelings, but opinions must be logically argued for.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

Nobody is saying you cant have the opinion, but if you express your opinion, its going to get challenged. Like when feminist say that we live in a rape culture, you would now get to challenge that opinion. No opinion would be off the table unless it was subjective taste like favorite color.

 

[glenn1]

It sounds like you missed what was being said in the original post. The teacher is saying that you can have subjective feelings, but opinions must be logically argued for.

Nbody is saying you cant have the opinion, but if you express your opinion, its going to get challenged. Like when feminist say that we live in a rape culture, you would now get to challenge that opinion. No opinion would be off the table unless it was subjective taste like favorite color.

Here in a nutshell is why many technocratic candidates and posters on internet forums don't understand, they think once they've laid out a "logical argument" that relives them of the need to make a persuasive argument because they think their solution logically and inevitably flows from their premise. In the real world it doesn't work that way and then they get all pissy because they think the other person is being unreasonable.

 

[sm625]

Most people's opinions about most things are clearly not based on any sort of factual, logical, or even empirical argument. Mostly it is just conditioned or emotional response. If you meet somebody and you get a bad feeling about them, that bad feeling causes you to want to discard what they claim and take the opposite position by default. It is a wonder that the planet isnt a giant smoldering ruin because of this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Most people's opinions about most things are clearly not based on any sort of factual, logical, or even empirical argument. Mostly it is just conditioned or emotional response. If you meet somebody and you get a bad feeling about them, that bad feeling causes you to want to discard what they claim and take the opposite position by default. It is a wonder that the planet isnt a giant smoldering ruin because of this.

Actually, you are confusing two different things. On one level people respond unconsciously to conditioning that creates opinions and irrational feelings. On another lever, they respond to intuitive feelings that are triggered by what we may call bad vibes that don't register at the level of what the person would call the 'I'.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Some opinions are better than others.

 

[OverVolt]

You are entitled to your own opinion.

You're not entitled to your own set of facts.

If the "evidence" you cling to to support your opinion is baseless and withers in the face of real facts and evidence, then no, you deserve no consideration or attention.

That doesn't prevent you from holding invalid opinions. But don't expect to be treated as equals with those whose opinions can be substantiated.

Mmm. Whats common now is for people to use facts that really only loosely support their claim. People over-extend what the facts are really saying. You aren't entitled to draw wild conclusions from unrelated data.

 

[OverVolt]

/the thread fails.

indubitably.

 

[MagickMan]

It sounds like you missed what was being said in the original post. The teacher is saying that you can have subjective feelings, but opinions must be logically argued for.

Nobody is saying you cant have the opinion, but if you express your opinion, its going to get challenged. Like when feminist say that we live in a rape culture, you would now get to challenge that opinion. No opinion would be off the table unless it was subjective taste like favorite color.

On a debate team? Sure. In day-to-day life, not really. Reaming someone out at the grocery store for saying something dumb like, "God will judge them" is just being a prick. Are you correct in replying, "Only idiots believe in God?" It doesn't matter, in such a space, they're entitled to that opinion.

 

[OverVolt]

On a debate team? Sure. In day-to-day life, not really. Reaming someone out at the grocery store for saying something dumb like, "God will judge them" is just being a prick. Are you correct in replying, "Only idiots believe in God?" It doesn't matter, in such a space, they're entitled to that opinion.

Well you aren't much fun to be around.

Its a statement, not a guess. 🙂

 

[MagickMan]

Well you aren't much fun to be around.

Its a statement, not a guess. 🙂

It's fun being mean to old ladies at Kroger? 😕

 

[realibrad]

On a debate team? Sure. In day-to-day life, not really. Reaming someone out at the grocery store for saying something dumb like, "God will judge them" is just being a prick. Are you correct in replying, "Only idiots believe in God?" It doesn't matter, in such a space, they're entitled to that opinion.

Why are you expanding this to day to day? This clearly was to be done in the classroom as a learning experience. I am all for arguing against bad ideas, but your point is that people are going to use this as an argument outside of the class to push an agenda, and that would be self negating.

 

[MagickMan]

Why are you expanding this to day to day? This clearly was to be done in the classroom as a learning experience. I am all for arguing against bad ideas, but your point is that people are going to use this as an argument outside of the class to push an agenda, and that would be self negating.

Are you reading what people are saying here? They're already using it to push agendas outside of classrooms.

 

[realibrad]

Are you reading what people are saying here? They're already using it to push agendas outside of classrooms.

Who? Even if they were, you can use the fact that their opinions are able to be challenged. If someone wants agenda, you would now get challenge their reasons. They could not say do x and we accept it. They would say do x, and we would get to ask why, and then examine the justifications.

But what policy or agendas do you feel people are pushing because of this?