not all opinions are equal and valid

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.

@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

@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.

You are again confusing opinions with facts

@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?

@DigiCat opinions can be facts i thought that is common knowledge

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

@DigiCat being aggressive with your opinions is treating your opinions as facts though especially like you that always wanted the last word

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?

@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

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?

@DreamWindow 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.



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 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.

@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

@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

@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

How about using google to check the covi death numbers vs the total population of planet earth?

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.

@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.

@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

@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

@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

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.


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.

@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

@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

You are again confusing opinions with facts

@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.

@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...

?

@DreamWindow if youre asymptomatic then youre the aggressor same with climate change denial

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.

@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