If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Conversation (Academic))   You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to call your opinion bullshiat   (theconversation.edu.au) divider line 25
    More: Obvious, scientific opinion, fair and balanced, University of Sydney, rhetoric of science, Meryl Dorey, Plato  
•       •       •

9715 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2012 at 1:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-11 01:19:08 PM  
6 votes:
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." - Harlan Ellison
2012-10-11 01:18:35 PM  
4 votes:
You have the right to free speech.
You do not have the right to be free of ridicule or consequences of that speech, especially if you're being a goddamn idiot when you say what you want
2012-10-11 02:01:27 PM  
3 votes:

pute kisses like a man:
one can be smart and stupid simultaneously. for example, ask me about some stuff, and I'm like a brilliant source of wondrous truth and insight. ask me about my wife's feelings, and I may as well start eating cat litter and aggregating potatoes. 


Intelligent men use the following phrase liberally during discourse. "I don't know."

For example with the aforementioned retard, his opinion is based on something he thinks he knows. If he were truly intelligent, he would in fact say things like this:

"I don't know how much heat is required to weaken steel I-beams to the point of failure."

"I don't know how much fuel a 727 carries, or what it's burning temperature is."

"I don't know how long it takes or how difficult a task it is to wire up an entire building with high explosives so we could fake a collapse using Boeing jets as cover."

/ WRT your wife's feelings, I have found the best approach is "I can't know. Have some chocolate?"
2012-10-11 11:33:35 AM  
3 votes:
FTA: If "Everyone's entitled to their opinion" just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

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.


So what your saying is that you are entitled to your opinion but not entitled for people to take it seriously?
I'll accept that.
2012-10-11 01:52:30 PM  
2 votes:

2 Replies: Save goes for religious freedom.

You have the right to believe what you like, and worship HOW you like, and people should respect your freedom to do so.
BUT you do NOT have the right to be free from disrespect.

People don't have to respect the CONTENT of your beliefs, but DO need to respect your RIGHT/freedom to choose hold them or not.
(And that "or not" is IMPORTANT, since it ensures no one has the right to IMPOSE their religion or A religion on anyone else.)

(GET your FARKING RELIGION out of my Science classroom!)


Some people cannot get that the freedom of religion inherently includes the right to not worship anything at all.

You cannot force someone to have a religion. To do so destorys the right of others to worship as they choose.
2012-10-11 01:50:48 PM  
2 votes:

NutWrench: Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines.

Dear Media,
You are not required to present "both sides of the argument" if one side of the argument is a load of crap.


This is a real problem with the news media in this country. I'm all for being fair and balanced, if there's two legitimate sides to an issue, but often there's not. If you're going to have someone on who's gonna talk about how 2+2=4, you don't need to line up some crakpot for the counterpoint of 2+2=6. Now this crackpot thinks their opinion deserves to be heard and can speak as an expert on 2+2 equaling 6 because they've appeared on talking head hour xyz.

Yes you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it can't be wrong.

"I think gays should have equal rights and be allowed to marry with all the same privileges as hetero couples"

"I think the government should not be involved in marriage at all and any two people gay or straight that want to should be able to get a civil union for the tax benefits and property rights and "marriage" should be left to religious institutions"

"I think gays are the devil and are destroying America and should all be arrested and put in camps like Jesus wanted, if we give gays rights what's next, people marrying their dogs"

Two of those are valid opinions and have a place in a reasonable debate on the subject, but for some reason the third is still given equal creedance.

And if you have one side saying 2+2=4 and the other side arguing that 2+2=6, you don't compromise and agree for 2+2 to equal 5. That also happens far too often.
2012-10-11 01:41:08 PM  
2 votes:

BKITU: Leeds: That article was a good read.

It's something that needs to be quoted in fark religion threads. Creationists, flat earthers and moon landing deniers deserve to read that article so they can feel appropriately bad about themselves.

You know who else needs to read the article and feel appropriately bad about themselves?

Randroids.


Agree with all of that, but there's a limit. If I have to back up everything I feel in every conversation, it will be like being in prison with "Skeptics". Sometimes we can discuss things without you needing to back up, prove, and analyze every god damned thing everyone says.
2012-10-11 01:35:07 PM  
2 votes:

Leeds: That article was a good read.

It's something that needs to be quoted in fark religion threads. Creationists, flat earthers and moon landing deniers deserve to read that article so they can feel appropriately bad about themselves.


I think I see a small flaw in your plan.
2012-10-11 01:18:39 PM  
2 votes:
Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one.
2012-10-11 03:22:14 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: Arguing with Anonymous Internet Guy is, like all things internet related, for entertainment purposes only.


Actually, it's as good a place as any to discuss this stuff. Traditionally in civil society, you have spheres of influence- family, social group, community, state, country, world, and you while you can slowly build outward, for the vast majority of people, you're never going to extend beyond the first level or two. When arguing on the internet, you're snaking tendrils out into the other spheres, and engaging in a larger discussion. Think of it like a net. Your social group is a knot, and there are lines of connection between knots- through people, through ongoing argument, whatever. Just due to geographic proximity, you're only going to touch those nearest to you. But now, you're drawing lines to little nodes in Califorinia, in Iowa, in DC, in Shanghai.

Think about it- you're on here discussing ethics and policy with a great multitude of people from all over the world, a disproportionate percentage highly educated. You're making connections to other local groups that you would never have touched before, and through argument, defining issues and bases for argument for a much more widely dispersed network geographically. You're tying distant nodes together, and in doing, you're turning the net into a ball. The entire thing gets much closer together, and becomes more coherent as a whole.

This has happened before. Improved transportation allowed for faster mail and more travel, and really helped solidify the US as a whole. The telegraph, the telephone- allowed for instantaneous communication all over the country. Cars, planes... very few delegates to the first continental congress had been outside of their state before. A representative from Massachusetts used to the small farm and free labor had no conception of the massive estates filled with slavery and indentured servitude in Virginia or Georgia, or of the people who lived there. Now, somebody from Oklahoma knows exactly what you're referencing and will be able to join you in a laugh when you fake a bad Boston accent.

It may seem like fun and games, but forums like this on the internet are creating a seriously big change in the structure of Civil Society. Hell, pull up a LOLcat. At no other time in human history could you have a visual meme like that understood by just about everyone of a certain generation in the world*.


*I refuse to get into the effects of the digital divide right now. If you're going to say something about teenagers in Africa, please don't. I know. The world is complex, and to fully delve into all that you'll have to read the book that I probably could write given enough motivation.
2012-10-11 02:14:21 PM  
1 votes:

Slartibartfaster: "down her in Texas" bugs me a bit, but I Accept it


ytrewq.com
2012-10-11 02:05:12 PM  
1 votes:

mooseyfate: It's not like he's a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob, he's just incredibly ignorant about that one particular topic.


I always fall back on "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

I've found that conspiracy theories are fun to play with even if you know it's nearly complete bs. Most of the conspiracy theorists I know question every fact, but give all sides of the discussion equal weight, which is the real problem.
2012-10-11 02:00:26 PM  
1 votes:
"I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid"-then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically." - Douglas Adams
2012-10-11 01:58:16 PM  
1 votes:
It drives me up the wall when reporters value neutrality above objectivity. How many times have we seen stories on creationism that contain a paragraph that starts: "Most scientists believe the earth is 4-5 billion years old"?

No, dipshiat. Don't distance yourself from it. The sentence you were looking for is actually "The earth is 4-5 billion years old."
2012-10-11 01:57:35 PM  
1 votes:

PallMall: AssAsInAssassin: Sticky Hands: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to mock you for it.

Or: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend the death your right to shut the fark up."

I ended a 30-yea friendship because my friend couldn't tolerate other opinions. Once, we were discussing a modification to my panoramic camera head, and he said something that was just not true. I replied something like "That's not the problem; X is the problem." To which he replied "Don't attack me." I said "I'm not attacking you, I'm just disagreeing with you." "It's the same thing," he said.

I brought that up months later, and he stood by it. A couple of years later we had an argument over some trivial crap, and I finally realized I couldn't put up with his arrogance and his enormous, fragile ego.

Still miss him sometimes, but then I remember...

Sounds kinda petty. You should call him and make friends again. Hell man, you already put 30 years in to it.


Sometimes it's better to just move on.
2012-10-11 01:48:52 PM  
1 votes:
Save goes for religious freedom.

You have the right to believe what you like, and worship HOW you like, and people should respect your freedom to do so.
BUT you do NOT have the right to be free from disrespect.

People don't have to respect the CONTENT of your beliefs, but DO need to respect your RIGHT/freedom to choose hold them or not.
(And that "or not" is IMPORTANT, since it ensures no one has the right to IMPOSE their religion or A religion on anyone else.)

(GET your FARKING RELIGION out of my Science classroom!)
2012-10-11 01:44:45 PM  
1 votes:

Hebalo: BKITU: Leeds: That article was a good read.

It's something that needs to be quoted in fark religion threads. Creationists, flat earthers and moon landing deniers deserve to read that article so they can feel appropriately bad about themselves.

You know who else needs to read the article and feel appropriately bad about themselves?

Randroids.

Agree with all of that, but there's a limit. If I have to back up everything I feel in every conversation, it will be like being in prison with "Skeptics". Sometimes we can discuss things without you needing to back up, prove, and analyze every god damned thing everyone says.


If you have to have every fact at your fingertips to back up what you're saying, what you're having isn't a conversation, it's a debate.
2012-10-11 01:40:55 PM  
1 votes:
dilbert.com
2012-10-11 01:40:25 PM  
1 votes:
2012-10-11 01:37:57 PM  
1 votes:
I prefer to operate on the basis that everyone is entitled to my opinion.
2012-10-11 01:30:47 PM  
1 votes:
He's a liberal arts professor. What he means is that "you're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to fail you if it disagrees with mine"
2012-10-11 01:26:33 PM  
1 votes:
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to mock you for it.
2012-10-11 01:21:29 PM  
1 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: You are only entitled to what you can argue for.

Agreed. Especially in that environment.

/Bachelors in Philosophy
//no, I'm not really doing anything with it
///well, logistics kinda counts, right?


I completely agree. If you can't discuss why you believe what you do, and defend it against counter-arguments, considering it an entitlement doesn't work.
2012-10-11 01:18:58 PM  
1 votes:
Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines.

Dear Media,
You are not required to present "both sides of the argument" if one side of the argument is a load of crap.
2012-10-11 01:03:54 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report