Thread: Sick of it all. Off to war.

Originally Posted by Sidney

An opinion is evidence/information that has bearing on the issue. Before it can be evidence it has to be relevant and admissible. On that basis you are still wrong about firearm ownership, it is a legal right recognised in legislation. So your opinion is worthless and not relevant - so not admissible, it also has no weight because you are just incorrect.

You are however correct about obtaining a job. Its not a right. Once you have it of course your ability to keep it is controlled by legal rights that apply to both parties.

Opinions are not feelings, nor are they unjustiable thoughts. Opinions are information and analysis coming from competance and capacity, that has bearing on the issue. It has to be relevant before it can be offered. It shouldn't be offered unless it comes from competance.

So you are partly right about one aspect. That would get you about 12.5%.... a bare pass mark for a quarter of the topics covered.

Why is it everyone seems to believe that their opinion actually matters, when all they are doing is saying what they want to think, rather than what actually is?

I'll give you a 10/10 for accuracy there

Originally Posted by jackson21

I'll give you a 10/10 for accuracy there

I wouldn't.

Opinion

A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

An opinion is a viewpoint/judgement made by someone from what they have observed and know.

Sidneys very narrow opinion on opinion is just his and his trades opinion on opinion.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I wouldn't.



An opinion is a viewpoint/judgement made by someone from what they have observed and know.

Sidneys very narrow opinion on opinion is just his and his trades opinion on opinion.

Well actually no not just mine.... that definition is a 100% correct for what is "legal opinion" and it is the criteria by which information is accessed before it can be offered as evidence to a court.

The reason that I promoted it is because of the sloppy public perception of what opinion is in the public arena these days.

As you illustrate in your definition it is apparently sufficient to form "opinion" without knowledge or understanding. That definition is reflective of what has occurred, rather than what needs to be happening.

That is damaging, it is the source of many of our issues and preoccupations. Macca for example and his weed kneed judges. His gut feelings have not been checked, offending levels are lower and prison numbers are higher. He's just wrong but apparently his gut feelings give him licence to express opinion without knowledge or understanding. Thus perpetuating a myth in public opinion.

No harm in general discussion, no harm in talking about what we feel about issues, gut feeling can provide insight and knowledge from experience can be valuable, but it still has to be put into context and checked before it can be legitimate. If is not weighed, its of no value and it can be problematic.

My father used to tell me as a kid to shut up and listen and learn. These days apparently "everybody has a right to an opinion" apparently also means that no knowledge or understanding is required, and everybody must express what they don't know or understand to secure that right... how stupid is that?

Let me paraphrase what this means...... "well thats my opinion anyway" means, I haven't got a clue what I am talking about and I want you all to know that.

So my "narrow opinion" of opinion is merely offered as a counter to stupidity and the public expression of it.... you can all thank me now...

And yes I know that this is an internet forum...

Originally Posted by Sidney

Well actually no not just mine.... that definition is a 100% correct for what is "legal opinion" and it is the criteria by which information is accessed before it can be offered as evidence to a court.

The reason that I promoted it is because of the sloppy public perception of what opinion is in the public arena these days.

As you illustrate in your definition it is apparently sufficient to form "opinion" without knowledge or understanding. That definition is reflective of what has occurred, rather than what needs to be happening.

That is damaging, it is the source of many of our issues and preoccupations. Macca for example and his weed kneed judges. His gut feelings have not been checked, offending levels are lower and prison numbers are higher. He's just wrong but apparently his gut feelings give him licence to express opinion without knowledge or understanding. Thus perpetuating a myth in public opinion.

No harm in general discussion, no harm in talking about what we feel about issues, gut feeling can provide insight and knowledge from experience can be valuable, but it still has to be put into context and checked before it can be legitimate. If is not weighed, its of no value and it can be problematic.

My father used to tell me as a kid to shut up and listen and learn. These days apparently "everybody has a right to an opinion" apparently also means that no knowledge or understanding is required, and everybody must express what they don't know or understand to secure that right... how stupid is that?

Let me paraphrase what this means...... "well thats my opinion anyway" means, I haven't got a clue what I am talking about and I want you all to know that.

So my "narrow opinion" of opinion is merely offered as a counter to stupidity and the public expression of it.... you can all thank me now...

And yes I know that this is an internet forum...

Sorry mate, you would tie us up in more red tape than one could shit. In all honesty if the politicians listened to more public opinion..... oh wait on say no more, Trump, Brexit and the next French revolution, alls OK with the world!! Now back to feeding my guts!!