Can opinions be better or worse?

[MrWonka]

I would believe the meteorologist because he bases his information on fact (machines, recording data, etc).

Old dude down the street would be considered an opinion (one owned by him) because he is not basing his information on fact.

So clearly you believe there is more value in one opinion versus the other and it is objectively smart to accept the conclusion of the meteorologist vs the random dude. Now if you have a whole bunch of people who are trusting the what the old dude says rather than what the meteorologist says what do we call those people?

 

[Hawkeye10]

So clearly you believe there is more value in one opinion versus the other and it is objectively smart to accept the conclusion of the meteorologist vs the random dude. Now if you have a whole bunch of people who are trusting the what the old dude says rather than what the meteorologist says what do we call those people?

Well now that all depends upon the meteorologists record for being right and honest. Currently the elite are often not believed because they have tended to be liars and incompetents turning in low quality work.

 

[MrWonka]

You do have a Trump festish....

That would be the opposite of a fetish. When the most powerful man in the world is an evil disgusting moron anybody who isn't focused on stopping him and his disgusting supporters is part of the problem.

All hatred is destructive to some degree.

No, it isn't. Irrational hatred is destructive. Channeling rational anger is perfectly reasonable and beneficial. Without it, the United States would not have entered WWII. We would have never revolted against England, and slavery would have likely continued far longer than it did.

It is commonplace for great athletes like Tom Brady and Michael Jordan to psych themselves up for competition by using any perceived slight against them as motivation. That's why so many professional sports teams are very careful about not giving their opponent "bulletin board" material.

Trump's mouth and his supporters are writing checks they can't back up with numbers over time. Trump supporters know this and are desperate which is why they're fine with lying, cheating, and stealing to get what they want, but the future always catches up with you, and the youth always win. When the tide turns you can expect us to grant you the same sympathy that you have for those immigrant children you've stolen from their families.

 

[MrWonka]

Well now that all depends upon the meteorologist's record for being right and honest. Currently the elite are often not believed because they have tended to be liars and incompetents turning in low quality work.

Oh, buddy...the irony of your auto-signature is thicker than pea soup. I suggest you start rounding off the sharp corners in your home, and getting rid of your weapons because when reality sets and your cognitive dissonance evaporates there's only going to be one way to escape it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Oh, buddy...the irony of your auto-signature is thicker than pea soup. I suggest you start rounding off the sharp corners in your home, and getting rid of your weapons because when reality sets and your cognitive dissonance evaporates there's only going to be one way to escape it.

You are not qualified to speak on the subject of me. Your refusal to listen and to be civil is noted.

 

[MrWonka]

You are not qualified to speak on the subject of me. Your refusal to listen and to be civil is noted.

Oh no. It is because I am listening that I fully understand your delusion. You hear what you're saying, but you don't grasp the sheer idiocy of it and the irony is staggering.

 

[Fledermaus]

That would be the opposite of a fetish. When the most powerful man in the world is an evil disgusting moron anybody who isn't focused on stopping him and his disgusting supporters is part of the problem.


No, it isn't. Irrational hatred is destructive. Channeling rational anger is perfectly reasonable and beneficial. Without it, the United States would not have entered WWII. We would have never revolted against England, and slavery would have likely continued far longer than it did.

It is commonplace for great athletes like Tom Brady and Michael Jordan to psych themselves up for competition by using any perceived slight against them as motivation. That's why so many professional sports teams are very careful about not giving their opponent "bulletin board" material.

Trump's mouth and his supporters are writing checks they can't back up with numbers over time. Trump supporters know this and are desperate which is why they're fine with lying, cheating, and stealing to get what they want, but the future always catches up with you, and the youth always win. When the tide turns you can expect us to grant you the same sympathy that you have for those immigrant children you've stolen from their families.

Defense of hatred noted.

 

[Lursa]

Since opinion are unsupported by facts, the whole thing is a value judgement, so one even the most daft here as a right to his opinion regardless of how wrong it is.

Our entire political system is built on opinions.

That's not true at all. In many cases, opinion is based on/informed by facts.

 

[Superfly]

So clearly you believe there is more value in one opinion versus the other and it is objectively smart to accept the conclusion of the meteorologist vs the random dude. Now if you have a whole bunch of people who are trusting the what the old dude says rather than what the meteorologist says what do we call those people?

Fox News viewers?

 

[Fledermaus]

Fox News viewers?

CNN viewers.

 

[Superfly]

CNN viewers.

So original.

 

[ataraxia]

Can someone's opinion be more valuable, useful, reasonable, and therefore better than another person's?

If not why do we bother arguing over them?

If so do we really need to respect everyone's opinions when some are clearly bad?

What criteria could be used as the basis for rating someone's opinion as better or worse?

Are there different classifications of opinions where some might be closer to right and wrong whereas others are totally up to preference?

The pragmatist's criterion for "better opinion":Ideas have consequences. The consequences of some ideas are better than others. If you can't think of what's going to happen if you try an idea, then the next best thing is to try it out and see what happens. Reality can be a very harsh teacher. Trust me it is not into relativism.

 

[Fledermaus]

So original.

Just having fun ..... With your very original statement.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Then why do we lump them together? Generally in grade school when we were learning about opinions the examples the teachers always gave revolved around aesthetics. An opinion is supposed to be something that cannot be proven wrong. But it sure seems like we can prove a lot of so-called "opinions" to be wrong over time with counterexamples and contradictions. It seems to me that a lot of people just use the word opinion to describe their beliefs in order to hedge in case someone comes up with a better argument, but in reality, they are not opinions at all. They are logical arguments.

There's a lot more to opinions than aesthetics. For instance, ethical questions cannot be settled by logical arguments, not really. They can be informed by logical arguments and experience, but not always (e.g. sociopaths, people who have financial reasons not to believe situations, if you have a deep-seated ideological to it being false, etc).

And also yes, a lot of people use the word "opinion" in an attempt to evade the need to defend their claim; however, I think this is most pernicious when they're talking about something that isn't an opinion (like a survey, a scientific theory, a math equation, etc) usually in an effort to push their ideology.

 

[MrWonka]

ethical questions cannot be settled by logical arguments, not really.

Yes, they can. In fact, they can only really be settled by logic.

They can be informed by logical arguments and experience, but not always (e.g. sociopaths, people who have financial reasons not to believe situations, if you have a deep-seated ideological to it being false, etc).

This is a list of biases that may cause an individual to reject logic. That doesn't mean logic hasn't settled the debate.

 

[MrWonka]

CNN viewers.

Do CNN Viewers ignore meteorologists? Or is it Fox News viewers who deny Climate Change and constantly mistake weather for Climate no matter how many times Meteorologists try and explain it to them?

 

[Deuce]

Um yeah there's my opinion and the wrong opinion. Duh.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Yes, they can. In fact, they can only really be settled by logic.

If you believe in ridiculous meta-ethical schools of thought, like in the Categorical Imperative or Divine Command theory. But those philosophies have serious problems that are sort of within the scope of this thread, but I also am not overly interested in debating.

is a list of biases that may cause an individual to reject logic. That doesn't mean logic hasn't settled the debate.

True, but in practice the distinction is irrelevant.

 

[Fledermaus]

Do CNN Viewers ignore meteorologists? Or is it Fox News viewers who deny Climate Change and constantly mistake weather for Climate no matter how many times Meteorologists try and explain it to them?

No sense of humor eh?

Hatred must be consuming you.