Question of the day
If someone in the public sphere, be it a journalist, talking head, politician or someone that is able to influence public opinion espouces an opinion that is patently wrong, should they not be allowed to be told that their opinion is wrong?
and
If I have an opinion that is wrong should I be allowed to continue to have that opinion?
Allowed? Donviti the Fascist!
Persuade, gentle Don, persuade.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
This is a famous quote from the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
We are a civilization that often is not capable of discerning the difference between the two, and in fact, are often encouraged to tune out those facts (and those sources of facts) that are not in-line with one’s beliefs or opinions.
Of course nothing unallows you from being opinionated. You use your own moral conscience to evalute its worth. Reason helps, critical thinking helps, and being able to articulate a clear message helps. An educated populace helps…well, I guess we’re screwed.
I’m just saying John McCain is a candidate- come on…..
You might as well tell the people who work in sicence that the end is nigh, becuase the idiots have stormed thew temple of reason and are burning its discoveres.
I believe free speech covers my ability to tell any journalist or talking head that they are wrong.
As for opinions, I can think the Earth is flat and that Hillary is attractive for as long as I want–until my actions based on that belief interfere with somebody else’s freedom.
“We are a civilization that often is not capable of discerning the difference between the two [fact and opinion], and in fact, are often encouraged to tune out those facts (and those sources of facts) that are not in-line with one’s beliefs or opinions.”
The problem here is that many facts–most facts–don’t actually ever “speak for themselves.” They have to be analyzed and interpreted.
That’s how Dana and I can agree on a set of facts, and completely disagree on the implications.
Fear people who tell you that only their interpretation of the facts is acceptable.
Steve,
Hi. That is right facts are one thing that cannot be disputed, opinions cannot affect me until they are translated into action.
Once our opinions about facts are translated into actions that affect me or you, “break my bones or pick my wallet” then there has to be a clear line that some interpretations like the ones that do not cause harm becuase they preserve “life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness…” are the default position….
Totalism and ownership of opinions and forcing others to follow them through coercion or manipulation, historically speaking, is the sign of a disaster coming for a republic.
Fear people who tell you that only their interpretation of the facts is acceptable.
This may be true. But you are the only one here making any claims about the “interpretations” of facts.
Objective fact most certainly does exist and that is my only concern in my response.