New
Feb 12, 12:35 PM
#1
so title says it all agree or disagree? i voted yes google gemini says The question of whether all opinions are equal and valid is a complex one with no simple answer. There are several perspectives to consider: Arguments for considering all opinions: Freedom of expression: A core principle in many societies is the right to express one's opinions, even if they are unpopular or offensive to others. This encourages diversity of thought and open dialogue. Subjectivity: Opinions are often based on personal experiences, values, and interpretations, which are individual and subjective. Judging an opinion as "invalid" might require imposing an objective standard that doesn't exist. Potential for growth: Engaging with diverse opinions, even ones we disagree with, can challenge our own perspectives and potentially lead to personal growth and understanding. Arguments against considering all opinions equal: Harm and exclusion: Some opinions can be harmful, promote discrimination, or incite violence. These opinions may not deserve equal consideration, as they can undermine the rights and well-being of others. Factual basis: Opinions should be based on evidence and reason, not solely on personal feelings or beliefs. Opinions rooted in falsehoods or misinformation can be misleading and harmful. Power dynamics: Not all opinions hold the same weight in society. Opinions from marginalized groups may be silenced or dismissed, while voices in power may dominate discourse. Finding balance: Instead of a binary "all opinions are equal" vs. "some are invalid," a more nuanced approach is necessary. Here are some factors to consider: The context and intent of the opinion: Is it being expressed to harm, incite violence, or spread misinformation? Or is it a genuine attempt to contribute to open dialogue? The potential impact of the opinion: Could it lead to harmful consequences for individuals or groups? The underlying rationale: Is the opinion based on evidence, reason, and respect for others? Or is it rooted in prejudice, bias, or misinformation? Ultimately, deciding whether an opinion is valid requires critical thinking, examining its rationale, potential impact, and alignment with fundamental values like equality and human dignity. It's important to remember that respectful dialogue and open-mindedness are key in navigating differing opinions, even those we disagree with. Aiming for understanding and learning, rather than simply dismissing opposing viewpoints, can foster a more productive and inclusive society. |
degFeb 13, 6:02 AM
Feb 12, 12:43 PM
#2
I need someone to explain to me how to come to a conclusion that all opinions are equal and valid and not make any logical fallacies, they are exempt from this rule if they use religion (aka their stance requires belief in something that can't be disproven) though I like that there aren't upvotes on mal so that you can see everyone's opinion, but that's different from what are those opinions worth ai sucks because it can't tell the difference between what is important and what is not, so why try to copy a bad characteristic of it |
Feb 12, 12:45 PM
#3
Unfortunately yes, we all to have to attend a training of some sort to be of value :/ |
Fate is a sleeping slave. A slave we were able to set free. |
Feb 12, 12:48 PM
#4
No, of course not. Otherwise we would never have any reason to change anything about ourselves, or arrive at better ideas. If all opinions are equal and valid, then that would mean that we stagnate as a species, since no ideas could ever be challenged. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 12:51 PM
#5
Yes, an expert opinion matters more than a layman's opinion. If I am writing a CV does the opinion of a hiring manager count the same as some person who never applied for a job in their life? Similarly, if I base my opinion on evidence, facts and experience doing something for years and years then my opinion would carry more validity than if I made a purely speculative opinion on a field, I had no idea about, and just stated something based on nothing more than a hunch (be wary of an expert who spouts an opinion outside their field of expertise). Granted, these are extreme examples and there are grey areas, but I just wanted to make a point that opinions are not equal, and they may not be valid i.e. reflect reality. |
Feb 12, 12:57 PM
#6
Reply to monsta666
Yes, an expert opinion matters more than a layman's opinion. If I am writing a CV does the opinion of a hiring manager count the same as some person who never applied for a job in their life? Similarly, if I base my opinion on evidence, facts and experience doing something for years and years then my opinion would carry more validity than if I made a purely speculative opinion on a field, I had no idea about, and just stated something based on nothing more than a hunch (be wary of an expert who spouts an opinion outside their field of expertise).
Granted, these are extreme examples and there are grey areas, but I just wanted to make a point that opinions are not equal, and they may not be valid i.e. reflect reality.
Granted, these are extreme examples and there are grey areas, but I just wanted to make a point that opinions are not equal, and they may not be valid i.e. reflect reality.
@monsta666 true and there is war on science right now so thats why i ask since everyone on the internet is an expert now a days and hating on authority aka ethos or appeal to authority gives a bad rep this days im linking this to relativism and some censorship too |
Feb 12, 12:58 PM
#7
Meanwhile the opinion is not aggresive or extreme, and it is totally logical I think it can be totally valid in my opinion. |
Feb 12, 1:14 PM
#8
all opinions are equal = FALSE implies not all opinions are equal = TRUE all opinions are valid = FALSE implies not all opinions are valid = TRUE (not all opinions are equal) AND (not all opinions are valid) = TRUE AND TRUE = TRUE = yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_proof |
ZarutakuFeb 13, 6:28 AM
Feb 12, 1:22 PM
#9
People generally lean to prefer opinions they agree with over stuff they don't. I would say the value of opinions vary. A teenage boy will likely give a more accurate review of an anime than a grandma for another teenage boy deciding what to watch. People of similar sex and age tend to think more similarly. |
Feb 12, 1:59 PM
#10
Reply to deg
@monsta666 true and there is war on science right now so thats why i ask since everyone on the internet is an expert now a days and hating on authority aka ethos or appeal to authority gives a bad rep this days
im linking this to relativism and some censorship too
im linking this to relativism and some censorship too
@deg deg said: @monsta666 true and there is war on science right now so thats why i ask since everyone on the internet is an expert now a days and hating on authority aka ethos or appeal to authority gives a bad rep this days The claim that there is a "war on science" has indeed also been challenged by experts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science There's not one thing or group that simply gets to escape this scrutiny. The problem is not that people hate science and want to discredit it, it's the fact that there is an uncertainty that appeals to authority simply do not address. And so, at that point, it becomes a question of ethics or morality, rather than factual accuracy. Do the families not have a moral right to their own bodies? Should scientists force them to do what they want, simply because it's scientifically accurate? These are moral issues. Not ones that can be solved by authority. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 2:06 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 2:07 PM
#11
Reply to DreamWindow
@deg
The claim that there is a "war on science" has indeed also been challenged by experts.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science
There's not one thing or group that simply gets to escape this scrutiny. The problem is not that people hate science and want to discredit it, it's the fact that there is an uncertainty that appeals to authority simply do not address. And so, at that point, it becomes a question of ethics or morality, rather than factual accuracy. Do the families not have a moral right to their own bodies? Should scientists force them to do what they want, simply because it's scientifically accurate? These are moral issues. Not ones that can be solved by authority.
deg said:
@monsta666 true and there is war on science right now so thats why i ask since everyone on the internet is an expert now a days and hating on authority aka ethos or appeal to authority gives a bad rep this days
@monsta666 true and there is war on science right now so thats why i ask since everyone on the internet is an expert now a days and hating on authority aka ethos or appeal to authority gives a bad rep this days
The claim that there is a "war on science" has indeed also been challenged by experts.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-really-a-war-on-science
There's not one thing or group that simply gets to escape this scrutiny. The problem is not that people hate science and want to discredit it, it's the fact that there is an uncertainty that appeals to authority simply do not address. And so, at that point, it becomes a question of ethics or morality, rather than factual accuracy. Do the families not have a moral right to their own bodies? Should scientists force them to do what they want, simply because it's scientifically accurate? These are moral issues. Not ones that can be solved by authority.
@DreamWindow not really especially with the pandemic and climate change have shown us |
Feb 12, 2:11 PM
#12
Feb 12, 2:14 PM
#13
Feb 12, 2:18 PM
#14
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow not really especially with the pandemic and climate change have shown us
So, you don't believe that any human has the right to their own bodies? Well, then, what give scientists the moral right to make this claim? And how far does this logic extend? Because as far as I'm concerned, if you take this to it's logical conclusion, it is a terrible outcome for mankind, if human beings do not have the moral sovereignty over their own bodies. And would you also extend this logic to abortion? |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 2:20 PM
#15
Reply to DreamWindow
So, you don't believe that any human has the right to their own bodies? Well, then, what give scientists the moral right to make this claim? And how far does this logic extend? Because as far as I'm concerned, if you take this to it's logical conclusion, it is a terrible outcome for mankind, if human beings do not have the moral sovereignty over their own bodies. And would you also extend this logic to abortion?
@DreamWindow abortion is a personal choice while climate change and pandemics are public health dangers |
Feb 12, 2:21 PM
#16
Reply to deg
@DigiCat opinions can be facts i thought that is common knowledge
also your opinions are as valid and equal to experts opinions?
also your opinions are as valid and equal to experts opinions?
@deg Trying to cover your a** i see... If you want a more detailed response, you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours As for "opinions can be facts", opinions can become proven facts, but once it's proven, it's not an opinion anymore, it's a fact, so i guess you got your knowledge from a factually incorrect source, cuz although opinions can become facts, they are still 2 different things and don't overlap |
Feb 12, 2:23 PM
#17
Reply to DigiCat
@deg Trying to cover your a** i see...
If you want a more detailed response, you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours
As for "opinions can be facts", opinions can become proven facts, but once it's proven, it's not an opinion anymore, it's a fact, so i guess you got your knowledge from a factually incorrect source, cuz although opinions can become facts, they are still 2 different things and don't overlap
If you want a more detailed response, you don't have to listen to an opinion or even like it for it to be equel to yours
As for "opinions can be facts", opinions can become proven facts, but once it's proven, it's not an opinion anymore, it's a fact, so i guess you got your knowledge from a factually incorrect source, cuz although opinions can become facts, they are still 2 different things and don't overlap
@DigiCat being aggressive with your opinions is treating your opinions as facts though especially like you that always wanted the last word |
Feb 12, 2:27 PM
#18
Facts are opinions converted in realities because they were proved in the past. Simple as that. |
Feb 12, 2:29 PM
#19
Reply to deg
@DigiCat being aggressive with your opinions is treating your opinions as facts though especially like you that always wanted the last word
@deg Somehow that better describes what your doing, written proof over multiple forums And again, confusing fact and opinion It is a fact that opinions are subjective and facts are objective, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and therefor not such thing as an opinion that is fact, there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however |
Feb 12, 2:39 PM
#20
Reply to DreamWindow
So, you don't believe that any human has the right to their own bodies? Well, then, what give scientists the moral right to make this claim? And how far does this logic extend? Because as far as I'm concerned, if you take this to it's logical conclusion, it is a terrible outcome for mankind, if human beings do not have the moral sovereignty over their own bodies. And would you also extend this logic to abortion?
@DreamWindow I feel you are making a strawman argument. No scientist said vaccines should be enforced on the population. They only provided advisory information and stated the risks and benefits of a vaccine. These findings were validated through extensive testing and close monitoring of people who received the vaccine. As more and more people received the vaccine the confidence on their opinions grew. Sure, some initial beliefs from the disease were wrong but those opinions were corrected over time as the evidence began to accumulate. The key thing is their opinions were based on the evidence obtained and that evidence pointed to greater benefits in widespread adoption of the vaccine than to take no action. Nothing was said about forcing the population to take it even those who were seen to benefit the most from vaccines. The closest you ever got to enforcement was when certain employees were pressed to take it as a condition of employment. Still, even in those cases, people had a choice whether to take it or not; no one was physically restrained and given the vaccine against their will. I think the same can be said over climate change. Sure, there are still people who believe man-made climate change is not a thing, but the evidence is now so convincing that denial that climate-change is not induced by human activities is an opinion only held by a very small minority of experts. By placing equal weight (or debating time on TV) to both sides of the coin what we are doing is creating the fallacy of false equivalence. This is the problem I see when people try and force equalling weighting to all arguments and opinions. There are occasions when one argument is simply stronger than the other. To me, if someone's opinion is strongly grounded on facts, evidence and logic then that carries more weight than an argument solely based on emotion. |
Feb 12, 2:51 PM
#21
An informed opinion is more valid than an uninformed one. Ignorant (or even idiotic) opinions are not nearly as valid as (and certainly not equal to) well-informed opinions from those who spent years of their lives becoming knowledgeable about something. If you've only seen a single episode of anime, your opinions about anime are not worth much...certainly less than someone who has seen 10,000+ episodes. If you've only listened to a few songs in a music genre, your opinion about it is worthless compared to someone who has spent decades avidly listening to it, or even being a musician in the genre themselves. If you never bothered learning about astrophysics, your opinion on it is nil compared to an astrophysicist. You (as in anyone) are allowed to like and dislike whatever you please, but that doesn't mean anyone who actually knows what they're talking about will take your opinion seriously simply because you stated it. In many cases, the fact that someone holds a certain opinion proves they know little about the topic. |
Feb 12, 2:52 PM
#22
Reply to DigiCat
@deg Somehow that better describes what your doing, written proof over multiple forums
And again, confusing fact and opinion
It is a fact that opinions are subjective and facts are objective, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and therefor not such thing as an opinion that is fact, there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however
And again, confusing fact and opinion
It is a fact that opinions are subjective and facts are objective, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and therefor not such thing as an opinion that is fact, there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however
@DigiCat whatever just google the definition of opinion then and im sure youre the only vote so far on saying all opinions are equal and valid |
Feb 12, 2:57 PM
#23
Equal? I suppose so, but how do you even measure that? Valid? Maybe. But again, how do you measure that? ... To me, the validity of an opinion always seems to be put against the real objective world, at that point is what you are calling an opinion even an opinion? |
Feb 12, 2:59 PM
#24
Reply to NextUniverse
Equal? I suppose so, but how do you even measure that?
Valid? Maybe. But again, how do you measure that? ... To me, the validity of an opinion always seems to be put against the real objective world, at that point is what you are calling an opinion even an opinion?
Valid? Maybe. But again, how do you measure that? ... To me, the validity of an opinion always seems to be put against the real objective world, at that point is what you are calling an opinion even an opinion?
@NextUniverse opinions are beliefs and beliefs can be morals or facts or just things base on experience |
Feb 12, 3:03 PM
#25
No, they are not, since a lot of opinions are rooted in the denial of facts. |
Take care of yourself |
Feb 12, 3:04 PM
#26
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow abortion is a personal choice while climate change and pandemics are public health dangers
deg said: abortion is a personal choice while climate change and pandemics are public health dangers So? They have autonomy to kill the life of an unborn child, but they do not have the autonomy to resist taking something they don't want into their veins? The personal choice of abortion implies that they have ultimate say over their own body. If this logic does not apply universally then they don't have the right to their body. There is no moral claim to encroach on this right. monsta666 said: @DreamWindow I feel you are making a strawman argument. No scientist said vaccines should be enforced on the population. They only provided advisory information and stated the risks and benefits of a vaccine. These findings were validated through extensive testing and close monitoring of people who received the vaccine. As more and more people received the vaccine the confidence on their opinions grew. Sure, some initial beliefs from the disease were wrong but those opinions were corrected over time as the evidence began to accumulate. They did want it to be mandated. https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/11/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html My argument was not whether lockdowns work, or the efficacy of the testing, but merely a claim that nobody has moral authority over someone else's body. And yes they did what they could to try and force it, attacking people's livelihoods and social status is indeed a form of force. You cannot say in any meaningful capacity that someone has bodily autonomy under those circumstances. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 5:58 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 3:06 PM
#27
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
abortion is a personal choice while climate change and pandemics are public health dangers
abortion is a personal choice while climate change and pandemics are public health dangers
So? They have autonomy to kill the life of an unborn child, but they do not have the autonomy to resist taking something they don't want into their veins? The personal choice of abortion implies that they have ultimate say over their own body. If this logic does not apply universally then they don't have the right to their body. There is no moral claim to encroach on this right.
monsta666 said:
@DreamWindow I feel you are making a strawman argument. No scientist said vaccines should be enforced on the population. They only provided advisory information and stated the risks and benefits of a vaccine. These findings were validated through extensive testing and close monitoring of people who received the vaccine. As more and more people received the vaccine the confidence on their opinions grew. Sure, some initial beliefs from the disease were wrong but those opinions were corrected over time as the evidence began to accumulate.
@DreamWindow I feel you are making a strawman argument. No scientist said vaccines should be enforced on the population. They only provided advisory information and stated the risks and benefits of a vaccine. These findings were validated through extensive testing and close monitoring of people who received the vaccine. As more and more people received the vaccine the confidence on their opinions grew. Sure, some initial beliefs from the disease were wrong but those opinions were corrected over time as the evidence began to accumulate.
They did want it to be mandated.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/11/health/us-coronavirus-monday/index.html
My argument was not whether lockdowns work, or the efficacy of the testing, but merely a claim that nobody has moral authority over someone else's body. And yes they did what they could to try and force it, attacking people's livelihoods and social status is indeed a form of force. You cannot say in any meaningful capacity that someone has bodily autonomy under those circumstances.
@DreamWindow public health dangers means others are badly affected by your bad decision and in this cases its deadly for many people its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule |
Feb 12, 3:08 PM
#28
Feb 12, 3:13 PM
#29
Reply to monsta666
@DreamWindow I feel you are making a strawman argument. No scientist said vaccines should be enforced on the population. They only provided advisory information and stated the risks and benefits of a vaccine. These findings were validated through extensive testing and close monitoring of people who received the vaccine. As more and more people received the vaccine the confidence on their opinions grew. Sure, some initial beliefs from the disease were wrong but those opinions were corrected over time as the evidence began to accumulate.
The key thing is their opinions were based on the evidence obtained and that evidence pointed to greater benefits in widespread adoption of the vaccine than to take no action. Nothing was said about forcing the population to take it even those who were seen to benefit the most from vaccines. The closest you ever got to enforcement was when certain employees were pressed to take it as a condition of employment. Still, even in those cases, people had a choice whether to take it or not; no one was physically restrained and given the vaccine against their will.
I think the same can be said over climate change. Sure, there are still people who believe man-made climate change is not a thing, but the evidence is now so convincing that denial that climate-change is not induced by human activities is an opinion only held by a very small minority of experts.
By placing equal weight (or debating time on TV) to both sides of the coin what we are doing is creating the fallacy of false equivalence. This is the problem I see when people try and force equalling weighting to all arguments and opinions. There are occasions when one argument is simply stronger than the other. To me, if someone's opinion is strongly grounded on facts, evidence and logic then that carries more weight than an argument solely based on emotion.
The key thing is their opinions were based on the evidence obtained and that evidence pointed to greater benefits in widespread adoption of the vaccine than to take no action. Nothing was said about forcing the population to take it even those who were seen to benefit the most from vaccines. The closest you ever got to enforcement was when certain employees were pressed to take it as a condition of employment. Still, even in those cases, people had a choice whether to take it or not; no one was physically restrained and given the vaccine against their will.
I think the same can be said over climate change. Sure, there are still people who believe man-made climate change is not a thing, but the evidence is now so convincing that denial that climate-change is not induced by human activities is an opinion only held by a very small minority of experts.
By placing equal weight (or debating time on TV) to both sides of the coin what we are doing is creating the fallacy of false equivalence. This is the problem I see when people try and force equalling weighting to all arguments and opinions. There are occasions when one argument is simply stronger than the other. To me, if someone's opinion is strongly grounded on facts, evidence and logic then that carries more weight than an argument solely based on emotion.
@monsta666 True what you say about it not being the scientist who wanted to force vaccines on the population, it was infacr mostly people with little to no knowledge of science who were championing the idea of forced vaccinations, which by deg's own logic should mean giving people the freedom to choose to be vaccinated or not is a more valid opinion than forcing them to However i do not agree with your take on enforcing vaccines on employees not counting as forcing people, many people can't afford to give up their jobs, so the people who can't and didn't want the vaccine very likely took it anyway even if it was against their will, and therefor it was forced upon them |
Feb 12, 3:16 PM
#30
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow public health dangers means others are badly affected by your bad decision and in this cases its deadly for many people
its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule
its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule
deg said: in this cases its deadly for many people How about using google to check the covi death numbers vs the total population of planet earth? |
Feb 12, 3:17 PM
#31
Reply to DigiCat
@deg Somehow that better describes what your doing, written proof over multiple forums
And again, confusing fact and opinion
It is a fact that opinions are subjective and facts are objective, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and therefor not such thing as an opinion that is fact, there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however
And again, confusing fact and opinion
It is a fact that opinions are subjective and facts are objective, there is no such thing as an objective opinion, and therefor not such thing as an opinion that is fact, there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however
@DigiCat: The grey area DigiCat is that while facts can be considered objective (this isn't always the case though) my opinions can still have a degree of subjectivity even if it is based on objective facts. For example, if a plane is flying through contested airspace, previous experience dictates 9 out of 10 times the plane will crash. My opinion based on this information states that doing a plane run is pretty much a suicide run. You could argue against me it is not a total suicide mission as there is still a 1 in 10 chance of survival plus with the latest updates on the new planes my opinion is even less valid. These opinions and the analysis of them can be further tainted if the findings (facts) are based weak data or flawed science. To put this another way, perhaps my earlier death rate only applies when using plane x on country y. But what if I am flying a more sophisticated plane in a country with less air defence? Do my opinions (based on fact) still hold up? This is when you get into grey areas about facts and opinions. In all these examples I am forming opinions based on facts but in some cases my opinion carries more validity than on other occasions based on the quality of the facts I am presenting. |
Feb 12, 3:19 PM
#32
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow public health dangers means others are badly affected by your bad decision and in this cases its deadly for many people
its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule
its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule
deg said: @DreamWindow public health dangers means others are badly affected by your bad decision and in this cases its deadly for many people its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule No, it is very much black and white. You either have ownership over your body, or you don't. And you are suggesting that anyone must surrender their autonomy at a whim of any authority figure. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 5:50 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 3:19 PM
#33
Reply to DigiCat
deg said:
in this cases its deadly for many people
in this cases its deadly for many people
How about using google to check the covi death numbers vs the total population of planet earth?
@DigiCat how many died in nuclear power plant radiation but still people call them deadly? how many died in coal power pollution but still people call them not as deadly? |
Feb 12, 3:22 PM
#34
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DreamWindow public health dangers means others are badly affected by your bad decision and in this cases its deadly for many people
its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule
@DreamWindow public health dangers means others are badly affected by your bad decision and in this cases its deadly for many people
its not all or nothing aka black and white matters when it comes to rules since exceptions exist to every rule
No, it is very much black and white. You either have ownership over your body, or you don't. And you are suggesting that anyone must surrender their autonomy at a whim of any authority figure.
@DreamWindow rules are not absolute also your freedom ends where mine begins so if you endanger my or others freedom to live a healthy life then youre a danger to society |
Feb 12, 3:23 PM
#35
Reply to monsta666
@DigiCat: The grey area DigiCat is that while facts can be considered objective (this isn't always the case though) my opinions can still have a degree of subjectivity even if it is based on objective facts. For example, if a plane is flying through contested airspace, previous experience dictates 9 out of 10 times the plane will crash. My opinion based on this information states that doing a plane run is pretty much a suicide run. You could argue against me it is not a total suicide mission as there is still a 1 in 10 chance of survival plus with the latest updates on the new planes my opinion is even less valid.
These opinions and the analysis of them can be further tainted if the findings (facts) are based weak data or flawed science. To put this another way, perhaps my earlier death rate only applies when using plane x on country y. But what if I am flying a more sophisticated plane in a country with less air defence? Do my opinions (based on fact) still hold up? This is when you get into grey areas about facts and opinions. In all these examples I am forming opinions based on facts but in some cases my opinion carries more validity than on other occasions based on the quality of the facts I am presenting.
These opinions and the analysis of them can be further tainted if the findings (facts) are based weak data or flawed science. To put this another way, perhaps my earlier death rate only applies when using plane x on country y. But what if I am flying a more sophisticated plane in a country with less air defence? Do my opinions (based on fact) still hold up? This is when you get into grey areas about facts and opinions. In all these examples I am forming opinions based on facts but in some cases my opinion carries more validity than on other occasions based on the quality of the facts I am presenting.
monsta666 said: my opinions can still have a degree of subjectivity even if it is based on objective facts That is what i meant with this line vv DigiCat said: there can be subjective opinions on objective facts however And what you bring up later is also true, facts can be proven, but they can also be disproven with new information, and also what facts apply to one situation might not apply to another |
Feb 12, 3:32 PM
#36
Reply to DigiCat
@monsta666 True what you say about it not being the scientist who wanted to force vaccines on the population, it was infacr mostly people with little to no knowledge of science who were championing the idea of forced vaccinations, which by deg's own logic should mean giving people the freedom to choose to be vaccinated or not is a more valid opinion than forcing them to
However i do not agree with your take on enforcing vaccines on employees not counting as forcing people, many people can't afford to give up their jobs, so the people who can't and didn't want the vaccine very likely took it anyway even if it was against their will, and therefor it was forced upon them
However i do not agree with your take on enforcing vaccines on employees not counting as forcing people, many people can't afford to give up their jobs, so the people who can't and didn't want the vaccine very likely took it anyway even if it was against their will, and therefor it was forced upon them
DreamWindow said: They did want it to be mandated. Fair play, I stand corrected. I still do feel the vast majority did not force the issue and left it up to the population to decide. At least that was mostly the case in the UK. I will admit we did have a more laisse faire attitude towards vaccination than most places including our European counterparts who took vaccination status more seriously than us. DigiCat said: However i do not agree with your take on enforcing vaccines on employees not counting as forcing people, many people can't afford to give up their jobs, so the people who can't and didn't want the vaccine very likely took it anyway even if it was against their will, and therefor it was forced upon them It is a hard choice, granted. But if you believe strongly enough you can get another job. I am not sure how it was in your country but just about the only people mandated to take here were workers in care homes who worked with the elderly. The issue is this, if my actions have a significant chance of negatively effecting the wellbeing of others in a significant way then it is reasonable (in my eyes) for my rights to be curtailed. Bit like smoking and the dangers of passive smoking. I think on this issue your opinion likely hinges on how much weight you place either on individual liberty or the needs of the collective. |
Feb 12, 3:39 PM
#37
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow rules are not absolute
also your freedom ends where mine begins so if you endanger my or others freedom to live a healthy life then youre a danger to society
also your freedom ends where mine begins so if you endanger my or others freedom to live a healthy life then youre a danger to society
@deg LMAO you do know how narcisitic you sound saying "your freedom ends where mine begins", is your freedom by any chance more important than that of the person next to you? And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers, so if you firmly belive vaccines protect people, you are free to vaccinate yourself and be protected by those who arent, or are you doubting tha vaccines efficientcy of protecting you from viruses? Cuz that would make the idea of forcing it on people make eeven less sense As for nuclear vs cole, do you know why the number is higher for cole than nuclear radiation? Cuz so many more people are exposed to it, and the vast majority of people who are don't actually die from it, the vast majority of the few people who have been exposed to nuclear radiation poisoning however... you don't need science to solve this, you need maths |
Feb 12, 3:44 PM
#38
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow rules are not absolute
also your freedom ends where mine begins so if you endanger my or others freedom to live a healthy life then youre a danger to society
also your freedom ends where mine begins so if you endanger my or others freedom to live a healthy life then youre a danger to society
deg said: @DreamWindow rules are not absolute also your freedom ends where mine begins so if you endanger my or others freedom to live a healthy life then youre a danger to society Rights are absolute. If you don't believe that rights are absolute then you don't believe in the concept of human rights to begin with. There is no "society", only individuals. Individuals with the right to their own life and body. You, or "society" hold no moral proclivity or authority to govern individuals, because in doing so it also robs them of their own autonomy, since we all have the same rights. Fair play, I stand corrected. I still do feel the vast majority did not force the issue and left it up to the population to decide. At least that was mostly the case in the UK. I will admit we did have a more laisse faire attitude towards vaccination than most places including our European counterparts who took vaccination status more seriously than us. Where I live, many institutions were restricted by law, to limit their services at the whim of politicians guided by these scientists. I'm not sure about the UK, though. But different places went to more extreme measures. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 3:50 PM
#39
Reply to monsta666
DreamWindow said:
They did want it to be mandated.
They did want it to be mandated.
Fair play, I stand corrected. I still do feel the vast majority did not force the issue and left it up to the population to decide. At least that was mostly the case in the UK. I will admit we did have a more laisse faire attitude towards vaccination than most places including our European counterparts who took vaccination status more seriously than us.
DigiCat said:
However i do not agree with your take on enforcing vaccines on employees not counting as forcing people, many people can't afford to give up their jobs, so the people who can't and didn't want the vaccine very likely took it anyway even if it was against their will, and therefor it was forced upon them
However i do not agree with your take on enforcing vaccines on employees not counting as forcing people, many people can't afford to give up their jobs, so the people who can't and didn't want the vaccine very likely took it anyway even if it was against their will, and therefor it was forced upon them
It is a hard choice, granted. But if you believe strongly enough you can get another job. I am not sure how it was in your country but just about the only people mandated to take here were workers in care homes who worked with the elderly. The issue is this, if my actions have a significant chance of negatively effecting the wellbeing of others in a significant way then it is reasonable (in my eyes) for my rights to be curtailed. Bit like smoking and the dangers of passive smoking.
I think on this issue your opinion likely hinges on how much weight you place either on individual liberty or the needs of the collective.
monsta666 said: But if you believe strongly enough you can get another job I'd love for things to be that way, but you are talking about a time when certain countries made it leagally impossible to hire unvaccinated people, granted there was the small loophole of getting tested for covid every 2 weeks, but that option cost money, money that not everyone had And even if there were jobs that didn't require it, i'm not sure there were many people hiring at a time when half the staff of nearly every buisness was getting layed off, with the rest of buisnesses going bust and shutting down, aka 100% staff layoffs And yes i know the UK was much more lax only mandating the vax for people working with people who are at high risk |
Feb 12, 3:58 PM
#40
Reply to DigiCat
@deg LMAO you do know how narcisitic you sound saying "your freedom ends where mine begins", is your freedom by any chance more important than that of the person next to you?
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers, so if you firmly belive vaccines protect people, you are free to vaccinate yourself and be protected by those who arent, or are you doubting tha vaccines efficientcy of protecting you from viruses? Cuz that would make the idea of forcing it on people make eeven less sense
As for nuclear vs cole, do you know why the number is higher for cole than nuclear radiation? Cuz so many more people are exposed to it, and the vast majority of people who are don't actually die from it, the vast majority of the few people who have been exposed to nuclear radiation poisoning however... you don't need science to solve this, you need maths
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers, so if you firmly belive vaccines protect people, you are free to vaccinate yourself and be protected by those who arent, or are you doubting tha vaccines efficientcy of protecting you from viruses? Cuz that would make the idea of forcing it on people make eeven less sense
As for nuclear vs cole, do you know why the number is higher for cole than nuclear radiation? Cuz so many more people are exposed to it, and the vast majority of people who are don't actually die from it, the vast majority of the few people who have been exposed to nuclear radiation poisoning however... you don't need science to solve this, you need maths
@DigiCat as usual youre clueless of facts google the phrase "your freedom ends where mine begins" its not my invented phrase as for the rest of your post im not gonna bother |
Feb 12, 4:18 PM
#41
Reply to deg
@DigiCat as usual youre clueless of facts google the phrase "your freedom ends where mine begins" its not my invented phrase as for the rest of your post im not gonna bother
@deg Yes, and the original quote is reffering to violence, not to if you want to put stuff in your body or not, which should not have any negative effect on you, after all, you're protected with that stuff in your body, again, unless you don't trust it as much as you claim |
Feb 12, 4:35 PM
#42
Reply to DigiCat
deg said:
so title says it all agree or disagree? i voted yes
so title says it all agree or disagree? i voted yes
You are again confusing opinions with facts
@DigiCat Any chance of you having these opinions... Climate Change effects are not manmade... Climate Change is overrated... Added Sugars are necessary... COVID vaccines are unnecessary... ? |
Feb 12, 5:34 PM
#43
Reply to deg
@DigiCat as usual youre clueless of facts google the phrase "your freedom ends where mine begins" its not my invented phrase as for the rest of your post im not gonna bother
deg said: @DigiCat as usual youre clueless of facts google the phrase "your freedom ends where mine begins" its not my invented phrase as for the rest of your post im not gonna bother Except that your freedom is not, in anyway whatsoever, being violated by someone choosing what to do with their body. However, the use of force to put something into someone's body against their will is one of the utmost infringements on freedom that there can possibly be. It's you who is the aggressor in this situation. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 5:45 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 7:04 PM
#44
not sure what these equal opinions are but the answer is no. all opinions are not valid is simply not true. there are some valid opinions, u know! |
Feb 12, 7:25 PM
#45
Adverrito said: all opinions are not valid is simply not true. there are some valid opinions, u know! You're reading it wrong. (Though it could have been worded better.) He meant not all opinions are valid, not that no opinions are valid. |
Feb 12, 7:52 PM
#46
Reply to DreamWindow
deg said:
@DigiCat as usual youre clueless of facts google the phrase "your freedom ends where mine begins" its not my invented phrase as for the rest of your post im not gonna bother
@DigiCat as usual youre clueless of facts google the phrase "your freedom ends where mine begins" its not my invented phrase as for the rest of your post im not gonna bother
Except that your freedom is not, in anyway whatsoever, being violated by someone choosing what to do with their body. However, the use of force to put something into someone's body against their will is one of the utmost infringements on freedom that there can possibly be. It's you who is the aggressor in this situation.
@DreamWindow if youre asymptomatic then youre the aggressor same with climate change denial |
Feb 12, 7:59 PM
#47
Reply to Gween_Gween
@DigiCat Any chance of you having these opinions...
Climate Change effects are not manmade...
Climate Change is overrated...
Added Sugars are necessary...
COVID vaccines are unnecessary...
?
Climate Change effects are not manmade...
Climate Change is overrated...
Added Sugars are necessary...
COVID vaccines are unnecessary...
?
@Gween_Gween exactly thats why i do not bother with digicat anymore here she treats her opinions as facts she thinks she is better than the experts |
Feb 12, 8:13 PM
#48
Reply to deg
@DreamWindow if youre asymptomatic then youre the aggressor same with climate change denial
deg said: @DreamWindow if youre asymptomatic then youre the aggressor same with climate change denial I don't think you are thinking clearly, because that makes absolutely no sense. aggressor /ə-grĕs′ər/ noun One that engages in aggression. The person who first attacks or makes an aggression; he who begins hostility or a quarrel; an assailant. It's clear that those who wish to impose on other people's life are the aggressors. People simply existing, and thinking what they believe, is not an act of aggression. If I think or act a certain way, that is different from what other people think or do, that does not make me an aggressor. What makes someone an aggressor is those who wish to impose their way of life on others, and force people to think and act a certain way. Simply disagreeing with you does not qualify as an act of aggression. Quite the contrary, it means you are free to dissent. Which, is a good thing. But it seems like the only thing you care about is crippling conformity, so I couldn't expect someone of such a stature to really understand the nature of freedom or humanity. |
DreamWindowFeb 12, 8:19 PM
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Feb 12, 8:19 PM
#49
Reply to SmugSatoko
Adverrito said:
all opinions are not valid is simply not true. there are some valid opinions, u know!
all opinions are not valid is simply not true. there are some valid opinions, u know!
You're reading it wrong. (Though it could have been worded better.) He meant not all opinions are valid, not that no opinions are valid.
@SmugSatoko true, guess i read it wrong since it's been written wrong. i think not all opinions are valid is true cus there are many invalid opinions! |
Feb 12, 8:32 PM
#50
Reply to DigiCat
@deg LMAO you do know how narcisitic you sound saying "your freedom ends where mine begins", is your freedom by any chance more important than that of the person next to you?
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers, so if you firmly belive vaccines protect people, you are free to vaccinate yourself and be protected by those who arent, or are you doubting tha vaccines efficientcy of protecting you from viruses? Cuz that would make the idea of forcing it on people make eeven less sense
As for nuclear vs cole, do you know why the number is higher for cole than nuclear radiation? Cuz so many more people are exposed to it, and the vast majority of people who are don't actually die from it, the vast majority of the few people who have been exposed to nuclear radiation poisoning however... you don't need science to solve this, you need maths
And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers, so if you firmly belive vaccines protect people, you are free to vaccinate yourself and be protected by those who arent, or are you doubting tha vaccines efficientcy of protecting you from viruses? Cuz that would make the idea of forcing it on people make eeven less sense
As for nuclear vs cole, do you know why the number is higher for cole than nuclear radiation? Cuz so many more people are exposed to it, and the vast majority of people who are don't actually die from it, the vast majority of the few people who have been exposed to nuclear radiation poisoning however... you don't need science to solve this, you need maths
DigiCat said: And don't try and pull any of your tricks, i know you're talking about vaccines and not serial killers I believe he's also talking about lockdowns, meaning he believes his freedom to evade illness is more important than your freedom to work or socialize. Of course, the idea of hiding himself at home while you go about your life has never crossed his mind. |
LucifrostFeb 12, 8:36 PM
その目だれの目? |
More topics from this board
Poll: » cancel culturedeg - 49 minutes ago |
6 |
by rohan121
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Do you have any addictions?Commit_Crime - Oct 19 |
35 |
by Commit_Crime
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Should Cats Be Allowed to Have Jobs?KittenCuddler - Yesterday |
15 |
by zzz
»»
52 minutes ago |
|
» Living your worst life is also honorable.LenRea - Yesterday |
21 |
by LostSpectre
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Honestly, why would you have piercings? ( 1 2 )Commit_Crime - Oct 15 |
73 |
by kerokero-
»»
2 hours ago |