Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

[ttoli]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

So in essence what you are stating is either agree with ME or you're wrong.

[Oracle]

The thing is, opinion is based on personal feeling and interpretation of the world.

I watched a movie with my friends, they loved it and i hated it. We shared opinions, but none were wrong.

Hitler was of the opinion that Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals should be eliminated from the World.

tayl0r ... I bet your opinion is that he was wrong!

.... And I know which of those two opinions / views is valid

Two opposing views can't both be right!

[zan]

OK good examples from those that bothered answering the topic.

(I see iceman has the curfew mentality firmly embedded in his occupied brain.)

Dino I agree many opinions could be backed up, but we can make value judgements on how they are arrived at, and then decide if they are equally valid to more sustainable views....

Surely that's what Humans are good at: weighing up the evidence and making decisions. Meaning not all opinions are equally valid.

My example:

The Pope has no scientific knowledge yet he firmly refutes the evidence from Evolution, that Creation by a God, was not necessary to put life on Earth.

Dawkins is the leading authority on the vast data and research we have which profoundly prove life can be "created" in a test tube, even by us mere mortals. This eliminates the central doctrine for a need of a "Creator-God".

Surely the Pope's opinion is then not equally valid, arising without justification or foundation, to that of Dawkins', in establishing whether Creation or Evolution, should be taught in Biology classes at schools.

Does this not just prove that your validity is only backed up by how many people you can convince to believe your version either by plain ignorance or just being scared????

[Maynard23]

Of course not !! and what a stupid question, ask Miltiades.

But on a more serious note, obviously they MUST be since an opinion is not a statement of fact and therefore is not bound by the laws of right and wrong for a very good reason.

What may appear to be right to one person/group etc, could appear to be wrong to another.

Simple example :- In the opinion of the American government, it is desirable to have nuclear defence mechanisms set up which can protect territories of interest to them and insist they are right.

In the opinion of the Russian government, those same mechanisms constitute a serious threat to territories of interest to them and insist they are wrong.

Depending on whch camp you are in, both opinions are of equal value and both opinions are also equally right AND wrong at the same time.

Validation of an opinion is dependant on which camp you are in, how you view it and how you interpret the reasoning that comes with it.

In cases where an opinion can be scientifically proved or disproved [or outside of science] the opinion MUST be valid until found [or decided] to be invalid.

A self opinionated person will not accept any other opinion but their own, which brings me back to Miltiades, a classic example.

Only in MY opinion of course.

[Z4]

This really is a stupid topic

[Maynard23]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

[Z4]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

What's up with you today Maynard23?

[Maynard23]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

What's up with you today Maynard23?

Nothing mate, just validating your opinion.

[Z4]

This really is a stupid topic

Absolutely, your spot on mate !!.

What's up with you today Maynard23?

Nothing mate, just validating your opinion.

I thought you thought I was bollocks