We cannot have an opinion

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Musket
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 12:27 PM

Naw, they've all got their arses in the air. They are talking about Akenhateon.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM

I am sure you are insinuating that I am guilty

Why would you assume that Keith? When you go to a rugby match do you assume that the scrum are whispering about you as well?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:57 AM

I looked through the Tunisia massacre thread again.
The only blatant political point scoring is Jim about Israel, and you Dave about BBC and the media.

I am sure you are insinuating that I am guilty, but I am not this time.

I also remember the earlier threads about the massacre which you and your friends used for a silly competition about when they would be closed.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Musket pissing himself laughing
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:44 AM

Whenever someone criticises without naming names, Keith leaps in all defensive.

You shouldn't post so many things that require criticism then Keith. Do people mean you? Well, yes, usually.

A made to measure cap if ever I saw one.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:28 AM

Naming names would only cause personal disagreements, Keith. "All the people who score" etc. means exactly what it says. If anyone recognises themselves in that description they should take note.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 05:08 AM

All the people who score political points at the expense of a human tragedy, remember that :-)

Name names.
Jim using the Tunisia thread as a vehicle for his anti-Israel agenda.
I have asked him to desist.
If we both ask he might take notice.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:42 AM

I just read a brilliant quote - I may have been on the loosing side, but it was still the right one. All the people who score political points at the expense of a human tragedy, remember that :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 02:39 AM

On another thread, pete says some people call his opinions bigotry and don't know the difference.

Bigotry is an opinion.

Ok, it might be an odious one. It might be seen to encourage hatred which makes it a criminal one, but it is an opinion.

I doubt his mate Jesus looked down on people eh?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:05 PM

well, I wonder if the mod will delete mystery guest, or will mod delete me if I respond to guest by calling guest on his unevidenced beliefs !.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:46 AM

Thank you. It feels real to me - possessed of a certain urgency that appeals to my more - er - folkish sensibilities, although I'm aware that it's mainly the name and the fact of them doing an early cover of TLB that is the real catch here.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:11 AM

Ok, seeing as the band is from the 60's I will allow you to dig it, man :-) And, yes, that last one is pretty good.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:18 AM

I know, I know - the name, the song... Couldn't resist. (I've just kicked MacKeeper off my MacBook so I'm in a happy mood). In compensation, I really dig the brutish sonics, banjo picking & harmonies on this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NQ-HZh_YKk

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:03 AM

Oh, c'mon, Jack. A 60's folk group singing a song about 2 little boys made famous by a paedophile! Why did you do that to me? :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM

Trembling Bells? Pah! I'll raise you Knob Lick Upper 10,000

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:54 AM

Makes sense as well, Dave O. No-one ever wins or looses these 'debates' hence their circular nature. Far better therefore, as suggested elsewhere, to forget the concept of debate on Mudcat and just take the piss:-) In my opinion.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:21 AM

A bit like your arguments that God exists.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 10:20 PM

Even the word .....argument.....is open to interpretation.   Do we mean , the explanation of , or defence a particular pov, or do we mean as in a volatile exchange.    The first is, IMO, healthy, but the second achieves nothing, except perhaps demonstrating the argumentative party cannot achieve the former.         Of course, anyone can say they have such an such opinion, and decline to back it up with reason and evidence, but they can hardly expect others to give it much consideration, as nothing was given to consider!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:48 PM

It's been said above that it's hard to tell who wins these debates.

I see two big problems with that, namely the misuse of the terms
"debate" and "win". My opinion. YMMV

There are several two modes of interchange that are referred to as "debates".
    There are formal debates, such as colleges, universities, and other institutions of learning indulge in, which are organized as a sort of intellectual sport. There are judges who apply formalized rules and standards and award points, the highest point total resulting in a "win". There is an attempt made to apply objective (there's that word again!) standards.
    Then there are the so called "debates" carried on as part of election campaigns. There are either no standards or very vague standards for these, but at least generally speaking there tends to be an effort to avoid personality conflicts and name-calling. There are no judges, at least formalized judges at the time of the rhetorical exchange, whose rulings are seen as binding or authoritative. There are always lots of volunteers (including radio and television people) who will criticize, and deliver fuzzy comments like, "I think Mr. XYZ won the debate," or "I think XYZ was vague" or the like. No mechanism for scoring the rhetorical exchange.
    Then there are the "debates" that go on in the legislative process, which are even more unregulated. In some circumstances there may be a vote on some legislation fairly promptly after the speeches, and that could be said to be a scoring mechanism, with winner(s) and loser(s), but usually the real persuasion of the "judges" who vote on legislation has been done off the floor and entirely separate from the speechifying, and based on criteria unrelated to the subject matter of the "debate".
    And then we have the fights, the insulting rejoinders, the repetitious assertions of opinions, often opinions masquerading as facts, the name calling--the blackguarding and raucous quarrels that we so often find these days here on Mudcat, I'm glad to say in other threads than this one (so far at least).

    Truth be told, and logic too, the only one of those styles of
claim-spouting that really should be called by the name "debate" is the first one, the academic sport kind, and it is only in that endeavor that the concept of "winning" can truthfully be applied.

    We should at least try to distinguish between debates, discussions, arguments, quarrels, and slanging matches.

    I should live so long!

    Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM

Very nice, Spleen. Another to add to my list :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:52 AM

Blackbeard's Tea Party? Ptah! I'll raise you Trembling Bells...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM

Bill, of course it's a subjective opinion.

But and because female subjectivity is just objectivity.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 06:42 AM

I think I just spotted a straw man argument elsewhere. Not raking up old coals so I will start afresh.

You say "All good folk music comes from Bellowhead."
I say "Well, no, Blackbeards Tea Party are pretty good as well"
You say "Saying that only Blackbeards Team Party perform good folk music is stupid."

Is that a Straw Man?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:21 AM

"Sometimes we just want to chew things over, throw stuff out, play with ideas. lConversation isn't a randomised control trial."

I think you're talking about speculating or hypothesising here, Cringe. But speculation often leads to opinion and far too often opinion can lead to the logically false position, "I want it to be true ... therefore it is true!" I strongly suspect that most political ideology is based on such a logical fallacy ... but that's just speculation!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:21 PM

"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am;" as close an approach to certainty as any philosopher has yet made." 
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:59 PM

"Objectivity is just male subjectivity."

A subjective opinion.. *grin*

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:13 PM

"Objectivity is just male subjectivity." --feminist claim, ca1987.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raedwulf
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:02 PM

If you don't agree with them, you can argue against them.

I said that. So, that's right, Steve, no-one is entitled to have their opinion not challenged. The same to Greg F & others. I don't hang around here much these days, for various reasons, and this is a long thread. I was responding only to what I thought I was reading in the upper reaches.

And no, Richard, everyone does, in my opinion, have a RIGHT (insofar as I believe in rights, but that's a whole other discussion) to their opinion. It is somewhat curtailed these days by laws, in various countries, about hate speech. But you don't challenge hate speech by banning it; you destroy it by showing how f***ing stupid it is. Banning it merely drives it underground, and then more twisted seeds sprout in badly illuminated soil. I digress a little...

The problem is twofold. First, there are those who do not understand the difference between objective & subjective, between fact & opinion. So opinion is fact & gods help you if you're on the other side!

And the second is the way you challenge. Now, mea culpa, I've spent a long time learning gentler ways of getting my point across, and I am often still imperfect. Particularly to utter dickheads who aren't interested in debate, only in yelling "I'M RIGHT. YOU'RE DISAGREEING SO YOU MUST BE WRONG!!!" Or words to the that effect.

It's all very well being right, but there's precious little point, as far as I'm concerned, in being Cassandra - always right, but never listened to.

As Bill says, Subjectivity is one of the most powerful forces in the universe of human discourse. The problem is that all too many people can't recognise when they stop being objective. And, all too often, the most driven, determined and persuasive are those who have not the slightest inkling that they long since stopped being objective...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:11 PM

True, Bill. Thanks for reminding us.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:50 PM

"Maybe an independent adjudicator to say who is right, who is wrong or whether a compromise is available?"

The problem DtG, is that if we had a resident PhD in philosophical logic who ruled on the various arguments, it would do little good, as the ultimate defense is something like.."Well, my position is 'right', no matter what your expert says about how I phrased it."

And there is a certain force to that. Humans are the only animal that can rationalize and adopt implausible, inaccurate and contradictory positions and then base entire political, religious and aesthetic schemes on them.

*I* can use the pages Acme listed... and various others... to show flaws in many discussions... and have done so in the past. I had many classes in logic & philosophy in school, but I can still only point out logical fallacies to those who care to listen. *shrug*

SUBJECTIVITY is one of the most powerful forces in the universe of human discourse.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:23 AM

Thank you, Acme. The only issue I have with any of these is that everyone involved in a debate believes that they are following the rules as laid out and, because they do, they believe the other parties are breaking them. The other big problem that I see over and over again here is that there is no referee or umpire in the debates and no time limit so there is no real indication of anyone winning or losing arguments. Which is why they go round in circles until someone gives up. The other person or people then believe that they have won and continue in the same vein with every argument they are involved in! I would be the first to admit that I more than likely do the same in an effort to get 'the last word' but I am a novice compared to some other members who are absolute masters of it!

The answer? I don't know, sorry. Maybe a time limit or posting limit on such debates? Maybe an independent adjudicator to say who is right, who is wrong or whether a compromise is available? Their word being final! Maybe, as I indicated earlier, it does not matter. This is a folk music site and not particularly influential in any other field so these discussions are nothing more than a trivial diversion. Although there are times you would think otherwise :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:11 AM

For your consideration (a few of my favorite sites)

Logical Fallacies

Nizkor Project list

The Secular Web

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM

:-P

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:14 AM

Dave, sorry to be a pedant but it is actually Thursday in New Zealand !!!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:04 AM

Keith - I was not cross. I was puzzled as to why my opinions should be explained to anyone, let alone you. If you want to see me cross try pushing in when it is my turn at the bar.

Thanks again. #, much appreciated :-)

Steve - A big yes. Context and trust. There are people who's opinions I trust and those who I would not believe if they said today was Wednesday.

Spleen - Well said. I Love the card too.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:31 AM

Loved the card.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:00 AM

There's a matter of degree too. I have strongly held opinions, fleeting opinions, contradictory opinions, opinions I don't really that much of a toss about, opinions I'm bored with, opinions that are probably wrong or at least illogical. It's only the first category on the list that I might be inclined to back up with evidence - the rest are largely good for shooting the shit and little more. If some pedant started demanding I back every bit of nonsense I come up with with facts and evidence, it would be a very short discussion. Sometimes we just want to chew things over, throw stuff out, play with ideas. lConversation isn't a randomised control trial.

Meanwhile...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Sans Edinburgh shortbread
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:48 AM

Don't confuse booby trap with a booby trying to set one.

The whole point of booby traps is to trap unsuspecting people. Snag is, everybody has him weighed up.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:23 AM

In another thread we are asked if the church should have any role in governing the state. I said no. That is an opinion. Is it not valid because I have not explained why?

Context is everything. Because I know you well enough online and agree with most of what you say, I would trust that as your honest opinion. I happen to agree with your opinion and if we were in face-to-face conversation about it we would be expanding on our common position. Your curt "no" here could kick off further debate and someone could ask you why you said no. If you said "oh, dunno really, I just said it". (which you won't!), you'd be taken for a buffoon. If you said cautiously, "I'd rather not go into it with you because you're Keith and you may be setting me a booby trap" that would be understandable. As long as you're prepared to support your position if asked to, your opinion as an honest broker is perfectly valid. In my opinion. ;-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:17 AM

For Dave :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 05:53 AM

I had and still have no intention of getting anyone to believe or act on my opinions.

Then why so cross when I dismissed your opinion?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:50 AM

However, when a speaker or writer expressly or impliedly calls on other individuals or society in general to believe and/or act on an opinion

That is the point. I didn't. I had and still have no intention of getting anyone to believe or act on my opinions. This, as I have often said, is a trivial site dedicated to folk music. It is not important and even less influential. If I wanted anyone to believe or act on anything but folk music, it would not be on here.

I am sure Steve well understands the point I was putting across and I am not going to go through it again here as it belongs on the other tread. Whatever the case I still contend that an unexplained opinion can still be as valid as one where the details are made clear. What is more, there are some people who will use the minutiae to nit pick where the overall meaning is obvious. Of course he is right about prejudice and bigotry and opinions based on those should be challenged. I am prejudiced against the mainstream media, I make no secret of that. Just as I am prejudiced against other bigots and hate mongers. It is a valid opinion to hold with or without explanation.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:18 AM

The converse is also true, IMO.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:16 AM

If someone who often talks sense expresses an opinion without giving an explanation in may be worth thinking about why they take that view.

I have not got round to seeking out Blackbeard's Tea Party on youtube yet, but I may do if I don't forget.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:13 AM

I have an "opinion" on where some of the "evidence" in the post above came from.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:04 AM

I am familiar with those arguments Dave, but generally an opinion not based on any actual knowledge is not worthy of consideration.

"be ready to be challenged to support your opinion, to demonstrate that
you are not prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise unduly partial. Even if
you're not challenged, you should be honest enough to offer that
support in any case. That would mark you out as a person of integrity,
not a mere charlatan."

"It seems to me, that "discussions" that consist solely of unsupported opinions, don't go very far. There has to be some sort of rational basis to a discussion "

"However, when a speaker or writer expressly or impliedly calls on other individuals or society in general to believe and/or act on an opinion he expresses or endorses, there is a burden placed on him to at least attempt to substantiate the opinion. In the absence of substantiation, there are results that follow. Some of them are:

1. Hearers/readers are likely to discount the opinion out of hand.
2. Hearers/readers are at least tempted to reject other opinions put forward by what I'll call the initial opinion-expresser, even if an explanation is attempted in that case.
3. Such blanket rejection might be applied to others who echo or support the unsubstantiated opinion, unless they supply the missing rational basis or at least attempt to do so."

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:32 AM

In another thread we are asked if the church should have any role in governing the state. I said no. That is an opinion. Is it not valid because I have not explained why?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:16 AM

Other thread, where it belongs, Keith. Stop cluttering this one with repetition.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 01:21 AM

One last try.

Dave,
Steve,
be ready to be challenged to support your opinion, to demonstrate that
you are not prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise unduly partial. Even if
you're not challenged, you should be honest enough to offer that
support in any case. That would mark you out as a person of integrity,
not a mere charlatan.

I agree Steve, and Richard and others made the same point.
It is the point I made to Dave that he so objected to, and led him to
start this thread.

I said,
"An opinion based on no actual knowledge is just a whim from an empty
head and deserves to be dismissed.
Please share with us the knowledge that your opinion is based on."

(He had expressed the view that mainstream media and BBC reporting was      
a major cause of radicalisation to join IS)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 07:13 PM

But I really haven't seen any need for an intervention in this thread, Bill. At least not in its main thrust. Ok, Jim and Keith are at it again basically because Keith turns up everywhere like a soddin' bad penny, but it hasn't gone far enough to warrant a mod intervention. It's bloody repressive at times, to be honest. And if the mods feel overworked or overwhelmed, they could back off. Threads that wander off topic or go sour have a habit of righting themselves in the end. If they're given a chance, of course. Or maybe I have too much bloody faith in human nature.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:49 PM

"... the topic of religion can be used in a very good way to illustrate various points in a discussion about the validity of opinions. "

But it never stops with just illustration. It usually deteriorates into repetitive bickering and eventually, insults-- and the moderators can't keep up. I suspect they are quite outnumbered.