BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Sawzaw
Date: 07 Mar 14 - 12:18 PM

"Thank you for playing. Again you have it wrong."

Who has it wrong? I never made such a claim.

I pointed out that it was wrong.

"Oh??? Then why have the Palestinians been hearded like cattle into what amounts to be concentration camps... The West Bank has the highest density of any place in the Middle East... That is a "concentration camp", Brucie... You don't have to have the gas chambers to have a concentration camp..

Hey, ya'll... Ya' ever looked at satilite picture of the West Bank??? I don't give a flyin' fig if ya'll wanta play games about how packed it is.... It is packed with people.... When you think of it's size... Ahhhhh, no bigger than the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, it is one very packed and "concentrated" population center."

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 09:04 PM

It's a sheriffs badge now gentlemen. Kindly check yer shootin irons with the deputy at the bar!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 08:30 PM

Is that a star, or a Sheriff's badge, jts:)

No trickly stuff, lighter- that is my choice. Unfortunately, not everyone has the option to make this choice.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 07:29 PM

The choice, Ed, is so obvious that I suspect a trap.

You won't catch me giving medical advice. But if the choice of two doctors were mine and they had identical specialties and full diplomas from recognized medical schools and belonged to prestigious professional organizations, and if you're not hiding something from us, naturally I'd pick the older, more experienced, more thoughtful, seemingly better informed, more cautious physician.

But we're still talking about odds, not guarantees.

Jack, a gold asterisk is not a gold star.

So you can wear your asterisk if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:31 PM

*

I would trust the one with the free samples.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:05 PM

Odd you should mention gp doctors. I have two (kinda got them through family history)..

One is younger, and tends to push the newest pill for everything.My feeling is he relies on his past medical training and whatever the drug salesmen tell him.I dont get the feeling he ever reads medical journals, as he isvjust too rushed. His receptionist told me once the averege visit is 3 minutes.

The otherw (oddly is both an engineer and gp), only prescribes medication after careful consideration. And, before he does so, he is on his computer checking the latest medical journal info on the medication. When prescribing, he always says the medications around longer are normally safer, as they stand the test if time. He spends an average of 15 to 20 minutes with each patient (observation from waiting).

Which doctor s opinion would you suspect trust more?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 03:04 PM

Hmmmm

I think my answer was better than yours, so if it is all the same to you. I'm giving myself and gold star.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:34 PM

1.
Anyone who says "don't trust authority" is saying that his own authoritative advice is worthless. Paradoxically, if you accept it you have to reject it.

So let's turn to experience instead. When you call a plumber or see a doctor, you're betting they know more about your plumbing or medical problem than do you or your philosophy-professor cousin. Since people with special training and knowledge ("authorities," "experts") know more about certain subjects than the rest of us, they're less likely to be wrong, or as badly wrong, about those things.

But there's always the chance that they're wrong after all. So be skeptical of a supposed authority whose track record you know nothing about, especially one that some non-authority recommends.

Though you can lose either way, it's smarter to pick an expert who's done more and whose previous opinions have usually turned out to be justified.(This is called "common sense.")

(Why should you accept my authority? You shouldn't: possibly I'm a just a computer program designed to delude. But consider the likelihood that most genuine authorities will be mostly right most of the time. If your experience tells you that all authorities are quacks except you, there's no logical way I can dissuade you.)


2.

It's the nature of human mind to form opinions. Natural processes are the source of your entitlement. If you don't believe it, that's an opinion right there, and you're wrong. You'd probably change plenty of opinions under torture, but you'd still be naturally "entitled" to them, even if the Inquisition's opinion were otherwise.


I authorize interested parties to design and make their own participation ribbons at home. Wear them proudly.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

Cooking meth again Musket?

:-D

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:54 PM

Cooking sherry again Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 12:07 PM

Given the current angle of the Sun, and my size, I probably cast a bigger shadow than most on Mudcat. When mental forces are exhausted, size frequently matters, thus the source of my authority (but, as a defence, I will not expose my back-up source/power to impose my authority).

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:51 AM

I want my star! But looking at my last post, I don't expect more that a participation ribbon.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:50 AM

From: Lighter - PM
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM

POP QUIZ:

>>Why should anybody accept your authority when you tell them not to accept authority?<<

Because most people accept the advice that they want most to hear.


>>What makes you such an authority? <<

I have a post graduate degree from PU (Philosophy University)
in Ideocentric Expertology I am a PU IE PHD.


>>If you're not, <<

I just said that I am.

>> why should anybody accept your authority?<<

Because I have an uncanny ability to play with big words. AND because this is the Internet and people should believe everything they read on the Internet. AND because I cross my heart and hope to die? AND Because I double dog dare ya not to accept my authority. AND because If I am not, you can put a cannon ball in a straw man and bowl me over.

>>And how do you back up the opinion that you're entitled to your opinion?<<

You don't really have to back that up. Most people just believe that they are entitled. Glory!! People think they are entitled to honest politicians and to roads and services without paying taxes. It is beyond simple to convince them that they are entitled to even the silliest opinion. If they want to be entitled.

To answer that last one seriously.. I don't believe that I am entitled to my opinion at all in a discussion. I try to back my opinion with reasoned argument, when my statement isn't meant to be humor. I also sometimes challenge people to defend their opinions as Donuel has politely pointed out.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:30 AM

Or maybe you're scared....

PS: The questions are posed trickily because that's how life poses so many questions.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 11:19 AM

Musket my friend, If you say you are. You are. IMHO.

I have to say.. If I were asked whose behavior is more Christian, yours or Ken Ham's. I would unequivocally say yours.

"What is a Christian?" is a very loaded question.


Trying to trick your neighbour into arguing nonsense with their neighbours about pseudo-scientific and worse (for a ministry) pseudo-biblical nonsense is about as far away from the teachings of Jesus as I can imagine.

But of course is opinion polling or any other classification I can think of he is a Christian. If he knows that he is lying and doing it for personal glory and fame then he is a rational non-believer.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 06 Mar 14 - 05:12 AM

Good one Jack. We are all Christians then.

zzz

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:22 PM

Why be so trickily?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 09:18 PM

Why should we do a test for nothing. At least a gold star should be offered.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Mar 14 - 08:10 AM

Time's up on the pop quiz.

No takers?

The questions are trickily phrased, but if for those who can't handle them, I'd recommend some other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:52 PM

Not my intended audience.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:36 PM

Did it ever occur to you to show the slightest in of [sic] manners Mr. Shaw?

I'd say it was good manners to refrain from posting garbage so unintelligible that even a professor of grammar would get a headache from it. Here, for aficionados to savour, is some of it again, verbatim:

If A. Is railing against the "god botherers" and says "the vast majority are rational." (implied meaning not "God botherers") and B. finds through opinion polls that the great majority claim to believe in God or some other spiritual unproven entity. Then A is forced to either question polling as an information gathering method, or make up an idiosyncratic definition of "rational", rather than concede that he may have been a little hyperbolic and we are off to the races.

Don't bother explaining it, Wackers. After all, I'm not your "intended audience" (you pompous prick!). "Audience". Bwhahahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:30 PM

"Come on Jack, even I can concoct a survey asking, are you a Christian or a church going Christian? "

If people say they are Christian who are you and I to argue?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:41 PM

Thank you for playing. Again you have it wrong.


Washington DC and Gaza have about the same density. Washington DC is less than 1/7 the density of Monaco.

Washington, D.C. misses the 10,000 mark as it has a population density of 9,316.4 as of the 2000 U.S. Census.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density


Population Density per Square Mile of Countries
Country        Population        Land area (sq mi)        Density per sq mi        Country        Population        Land area (sq mi)        Density per sq mi
Macau S.A.R.         453,125        6        73,350        Macedonia         2,050,554        9,928        207
Monaco         32,543        0.8        42,143        Croatia         4,494,749        21,829        206
Singapore         4,492,150        241        18,645        Egypt         78,887,007        384,344        205
Hong Kong S.A.R.         6,940,432        382        18,176        Cambodia         13,881,427        68,154        204
Gibraltar         27,928        2        12,056        Ukraine         46,710,816        233,089        200

Country            Population            Land area
                            (sq mi)        Density per sq mi
Gaza Strip         1,428,757        147        9,713        


French Polynesia         274,578        1,413        194

Read more: Population Density per Square Mile of Countries | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934666.html#ixzz2v1Kulr19

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:32 PM

Or you have some jackass getting the West Bank mixed up with Gaza and having the whole thing arsed up on that basis alone?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Sawzaw
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:52 PM

I agree with the article. Saying you are not entitled is a way of making people support, defend and therefore verify the truth of their opinion.

Otherwise you have someone claiming the West Bank is no bigger than Washington DC, the most densely populated place on earth and other people trying to defend the claim rather than admit the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:29 AM

Here! I'm the one who uses the word rational!

I haven't been on this thread have I? Can't be arsed to check, so happy to be wrong on that and that alone.

Come on Jack, even I can concoct a survey asking, are you a Christian or a church going Christian?

At the risk of sounding crude for the first time ever, a mate of mine, back when we were teenagers was trying to chat up a group of girls to no avail. After a while, he came back to us, bought a round and said he didn't fancy any of them anyway. We nodded whilst drinking, as you do when comforting a mate.

Meanwhile, one of the girls, a delightful young lady of whom I'm sure it would be charming to partake of a glass of Chardonnay with of an evening, shouted over to him, making sure we all heard. "I'm defending you! She said you aren't fit to fuck a pig, and said you are!"

A salutary lesson in how to phrase choices.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:03 PM

Did it ever occur to you to show the slightest in of manners Mr. Shaw?

Has it occurred to you that you are not my intended audience?

Has it occurred to you that I do not care what you think of me?

Has any of the following EVER occurred to you?

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

While anonymous Guest postings are permitted at Mudcat, you will garner much more good will by using a consistent "handle".

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:25 PM

Clear as mud, Wackers. Do you never re-read your posts and think to yourself "how might I be more polite to my readers and save them from a lot of mental processing? Ought I to check what I've written and edit the bloody thing to make it at least a little more intelligible?"

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:00 AM

>>An opinion that the somewhat secular majority of people in The UK are in fact religious.<<

A very common thing on this forum is where two or more people are arguing but not the same points.

Your quote above illustrates that well.

If A. Is railing against the "god botherers" and says "the vast majority are rational." (implied meaning not "God botherers") and B. finds through opinion polls that the great majority claim to believe in God or some other spiritual unproven entity. Then A is forced to either question polling as an information gathering method, or make up an idiosyncratic definition of "rational", rather than concede that he may have been a little hyperbolic and we are off to the races.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM

POP QUIZ:

Why should anybody accept your authority when you tell them not to accept authority? What makes you such an authority? If you're not, why should anybody accept your authority?

And how do you back up the opinion that you're entitled to your opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:55 AM

Bodhrans. You forgot bodhrans.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:18 AM

An opinion that bagpipes should not be listed as musical instruments, but instruments of torture:)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 06:57 AM

There is a huge difference between having an opinion and seeking to have it thrust upon society.

Even just keeping to these threads, we have recently seen;

An opinion that creationism should be taught as a subject to chidren.

An opinion that gay people are responsible for the prevalent HIV rates.

An opinion that people who have nothing to do with religion have a stance in one way or another to back up not having enything to do with religion.

An opinion that pocket watches are worth collecting.

An opinion that the somewhat secular majority of people in The UK are in fact religious.

An opinion that sending waves of men over the top in WW1 was an example of good leadership.

An opinion that banjos should be played in public.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 12:20 PM

"It is my opinion that he has not read the article or the thread,"

According to Professor Stokes, you are not entitled to this opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:03 AM

Link forbidden, jts?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 09:28 AM

Or was it the one on the right?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 09:28 AM

The one on the left said, "I can see Russia from my house.

I'm pretty sure it was a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 07:20 AM

'"Henceforth, invocations of Sarah Palin frequently employed the line "I can see Russia from my house," rather than the words she actually spoke, "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."'

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:58 AM

Not according to Snopes. Read the link.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:19 AM

flu modeling 

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 11:16 PM

As I recall she implied that she had foreign affairs experience because on an uninhabited Alaskan island hundreds of miles from her house a person on a clear day could see an uninhabited Russian island thousands of miles from Moscow.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 08:44 PM

As much as I detest Sarah Palin, she didn't say she could see Russia from her front porch.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

LOL, jts

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:40 PM

Y'all always forget US of America has its own polar bears. We bought them from Russia. Sarah Palin can see 'em from her front yard.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:32 PM

Your choice jts, fella.

Hopefully, you are not going off "half-cocked with those wet-behind-the ears ideas? - as you left out a hunk of Cdn real estate and ocean frontage in the wish.

While you may have exited southward to "corporate-consumerland", don't hold your breath for a big migration of polar bears to join you in the UZ-US of A, except for the annual migration of "white shoe" snowbirds in the coldish winter. Trust me, the polar bears are staying put, 'cause it is just too "wacky fur 'em". :)

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:58 PM

Ed, I don't need to discuss this any more. Frankly the only way I think that the Grand Banks and Georges Banks stocks can recover is for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to join the USA and for the Navy to sink any vessel with a foreign flag and fishing gear that crosses the continental shelf.

Oh yeah and polar bear farms, and orca farms, and walled villages.

As long as the resource is not controlled by a single entity with the strength and will to protect it, that resource is doomed.

That's just my opinion. I don't have time to defend it.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:03 PM

Jts: (don't take offense of the piece below, as I am not saying you said anything related)

Some folks claim that the solution to the "tragedy of the commons" is more private ownership of the resource and fewer fishermen. Most areas have fewer fishermen, and unfortunately less economic spin off to local communities, once relying on the local fish resource. Those who remain, face high costs, to maintain common services. Added to this are ITQs, which allow fishermen to sell and concentrate these resource to corporate interests.Some folks are lucky to get jobs as "hands" fishing the resource their grandparents used to have a share of. Some areas do not allow concentration of the resourcers into the hands of a few. Some have made moves to shared local "community quotas", based on catch history. (This is something we should discuss in more detail later, if you are interested)

As to the conservation benefits a few (for example, corporations) controlling the resource, look what happened to the fish off northern Nfld. (with a early form of ITQs,involving a very few corporate interests). It was not the fishermen you mentioned, operating the boats who made the decisions to "keep fishing and dump massive amounts of fish overboard" (with obvious impact on the local communties they lived in). It was the people in the "far away" corporate offices, who had more concern for filling today's fish orders, rather than conserving tomorrows resource.

Maybe the "local folks" would not have done better if in control, maybe they would have? But, what happened is a poor reason fora conclusion that a scenario with fewer (corporate) owners make more sense for conserving the fish resources. - note I am not saying that you said that, jts)

Maybe this deserves a thread of it's own, as I am sure we could discuss it in a more focused way, without taking away from the OP?

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:42 PM

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for."
Says Professor Stokes.

What credence should we give to these "arguments"? When it comes to physical laws determined by science, then it seems reasonable that these "arguments" have value. Subjects such as philosophy, political theory and theology espoused by so-called authorities have no real weight as a legitimate determining of their veracity and this is particularly true of those who argue so pedantically about such peculiar and arbitrary mythology presented in the bible.

Anyone with horse sense can argue conclusively with their opinion if what is being presented is barrage of erstwhile data that is spurious, being presented as "fact", today.

An opinion by honest people can be tempered by personal experience, a valid form of
determining entitlement to an opinion. The opinion may be deemed right or wrong depending on the prejudgment of the listener.

For an authoritarian mindset, information, compiled and espoused by so-called "authorities" is accepted unquestionably and this applies to any Professor by the name of Stokes.

So many of this kind of punditry is a kind of fad that attempts to belittle any kind of
viewpoint not held by the pundit and frames a kind of authority that is indeed questionable.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:15 PM

Forgot my old 't there, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: You are NOT entitled to your opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:14 PM

I hear you Jack. If stupidity got us into this mess, why can it get us out.