Originally posted by kris_smith87:I completely agree that people have differing opinions however I'm no longer going to just accept an opinion because it is an opinion. Opinions can be wrong and unless you have legitimate facts to back up what you are saying I'm not going to accept that.
Now with alternative facts this will become next to impossible.
I'm super left but there are people on my team who are too sensitive and emotional an I fear that these people can't debate and discuss with anyone who disagrees. It is definitely a murky political climate right now.
Originally posted by deanallison:[..]
You actually bring up a good point because when you say opinions can be wrong I don't actually think that's the case but rather statements can be wrong. It's important to differentiate between what is an opinion and a statement. I'd say most things come under the opinion category, only figures and events that we can prove happened can be considered facts. If someone has a view that seems ridiculous and almost certainly won't or hasn't happened we still can't dismiss it as false, we can disagree and wait for the outcome but we can't shut people down. Its really difficult though because on the one hand everyone has a right to there opinion and it's good to express it and allow everyone a voice but on the other if it's just leading to disagreement and not bringing people round then what's the point?
Originally posted by kris_smith87:I completely agree that people have differing opinions however I'm no longer going to just accept an opinion because it is an opinion. Opinions can be wrong and unless you have legitimate facts to back up what you are saying I'm not going to accept that.
Now with alternative facts this will become next to impossible.
I'm super left but there are people on my team who are too sensitive and emotional an I fear that these people can't debate and discuss with anyone who disagrees. It is definitely a murky political climate right now.
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
Opinions are also a murky climate. The difference between fact and opinion sometimes balances with what side of the fence you are on. When you lean too far to either side, your opinion becomes fact and no matter how much the evidence points to you being wrong, you're not going to see it.
Most people don't want to seek the truth and accept what they are told or what they read from their favorite sources, which usually share the same side of the fence as them.
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
Opinions are also a murky climate. The difference between fact and opinion sometimes balances with what side of the fence you are on. When you lean too far to either side, your opinion becomes fact and no matter how much the evidence points to you being wrong, you're not going to see it.
Most people don't want to seek the truth and accept what they are told or what they read from their favorite sources, which usually share the same side of the fence as them.
Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
I agree generally although I wouldn't necessarily limit the point about opinions of people who are 'too far either side', I'd say people across the spectrum have their views shaped / distorted by their views - but indeed, that is my opinion
**
One of things I'm getting from keeping up with the thread currently is that - before we get into 'alternative facts' and all that jazz - I feel we have a big problem around the world in determining what actually constitutes an objective fact that everyone can objectively agree on in order to then draw our own conclusions, e.g. the reports about inauguration figures for Trump and Obama. Hypothetically speaking (partly because I haven't been able to establish any agreed facts on the matter), I think the problem with the memes about who had a bigger attendance is that there wasn't a balanced representation, e.g. the pictures I've seen in a few news sources (The Guardian, The Independent, NYT etc.) being used didn't specify when the pictures were taken. If indeed there was definitive proof that they were taken at the same time (e.g. 2:30pm during either ceremony when let's say the crowds were at their peak) then grand, we should be able to accept that as a fact. If they're just put out there at a point where one inauguration had visibly more people there than the other, to my mind that's representing a situation > presenting fact, unless the fact you are saying is that 'at the time picture A was taken at event X, there were more people than shown in picture B at the time it was taken at event Y', which is probably a fact, but not a relevant one to the overall point trying to be established.
I struggle with the idea that moral judgements can be involved in objective fact, e.g. war is objectively wrong, but certainly agree should be . Please don't misunderstand me in so far as I myself do believe that war is wrong, but that's based on my morality which I believe is a subjective thing. I don't believe that outside of this planet the various moralities of humans around the world have any objective relevance - I argue that they're all born out of social / cultural / evolutionary development and thus relevant in our multiple subjective existences, but not universally relevant. To that end, morality
To conclude my rambling, something I've trained myself to do for a long time now is to endeavour to make it abundantly that whatever I am saying is indeed my opinion, i.e. owning it with 'I think' etc. If you draw on fact or anecdotes, make it clear where you've sourced it for etc.
I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation / argument with people who either state opinion as fact (as I think we've all said previously) or at the least don't own what they say as opinion, because I think it's harder to engage in proper discourse if something is presented as absolute when it's actually someone's take on an issue.
(If you've made it this far, thank you for reading - I think it became more philosophy than politics but there you go!)
Originally posted by kris_smith87:[..]
Also agreed. Take for example the issue of refugees which I have discussed with my uncle. He says we shouldn't let them in and that is "[his] opinion". Why? One example he gives is that they will take our jobs. He tried to pose it to me and said "What if one of them came here and took a teaching job from you?"
But that is simply not possible. The way it works here is based on experience. So a "refugee teacher" if they exist can't come to Newfoundland and take a job over me because they simply do not have time built up in this district.
So that might be my uncle's opinion but he is misinformed. (I'm also not saying that would be the case in every job....but still). He still has that opinion though.
Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
I agree generally although I wouldn't necessarily limit the point about opinions of people who are 'too far either side', I'd say people across the spectrum have their views shaped / distorted by their views - but indeed, that is my opinion
**
One of things I'm getting from keeping up with the thread currently is that - before we get into 'alternative facts' and all that jazz - I feel we have a big problem around the world in determining what actually constitutes an objective fact that everyone can objectively agree on in order to then draw our own conclusions, e.g. the reports about inauguration figures for Trump and Obama. Hypothetically speaking (partly because I haven't been able to establish any agreed facts on the matter), I think the problem with the memes about who had a bigger attendance is that there wasn't a balanced representation, e.g. the pictures I've seen in a few news sources (The Guardian, The Independent, NYT etc.) being used didn't specify when the pictures were taken. If indeed there was definitive proof that they were taken at the same time (e.g. 2:30pm during either ceremony when let's say the crowds were at their peak) then grand, we should be able to accept that as a fact. If they're just put out there at a point where one inauguration had visibly more people there than the other, to my mind that's representing a situation > presenting fact, unless the fact you are saying is that 'at the time picture A was taken at event X, there were more people than shown in picture B at the time it was taken at event Y', which is probably a fact, but not a relevant one to the overall point trying to be established.
I struggle with the idea that moral judgements can be involved in objective fact, e.g. war is objectively wrong, but certainly agree should be . Please don't misunderstand me in so far as I myself do believe that war is wrong, but that's based on my morality which I believe is a subjective thing. I don't believe that outside of this planet the various moralities of humans around the world have any objective relevance - I argue that they're all born out of social / cultural / evolutionary development and thus relevant in our multiple subjective existences, but not universally relevant. To that end, morality
To conclude my rambling, something I've trained myself to do for a long time now is to endeavour to make it abundantly that whatever I am saying is indeed my opinion, i.e. owning it with 'I think' etc. If you draw on fact or anecdotes, make it clear where you've sourced it for etc.
I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation / argument with people who either state opinion as fact (as I think we've all said previously) or at the least don't own what they say as opinion, because I think it's harder to engage in proper discourse if something is presented as absolute when it's actually someone's take on an issue.
(If you've made it this far, thank you for reading - I think it became more philosophy than politics but there you go!)
Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
To conclude my rambling, something I've trained myself to do for a long time now is to endeavour to make it abundantly that whatever I am saying is indeed my opinion, i.e. owning it with 'I think' etc. If you draw on fact or anecdotes, make it clear where you've sourced it for etc.
I find it incredibly difficult to have a conversation / argument with people who either state opinion as fact (as I think we've all said previously) or at the least don't own what they say as opinion, because I think it's harder to engage in proper discourse if something is presented as absolute when it's actually someone's take on an issue.
BINGO!
It's also hard to have dialog on things when one or the other approaches with an elitist or condescending tone that their "opinion" is gospel and your "opinion" makes you an idiot.