[aclug-L] Re: Richard Reid

[flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx]

I suppose that depends on your definition of "opinion" and perhaps your
definition of "wrong."
One's opinion might be that it is possible to walk through brick walls.  I
think it could be reasonably argued that such an opinion can be
scientifically proven to be wrong.
On the other hand, someone might say that's not an opinion at all, but
rather a misunderstanding or misapplication of the facts.

Perhaps a better example of a "wrong opinion" might be the opinion someone
might hold that, say, it is going to rain tomorrow.  If it turns out not
to rain, then that opinion is wrong.
Again, it could be argued that such is not truely an opinion, but again a
misinterpretation of facts.  Such could be said of any opinion about
future events that do not come to pass.

My last example I think does truely represent an opinion.  I suppose the
rightness or wrongness could be arguably subjective:
A person may hold the opinion that being a good husband requires
communication with his wife.  I think nearly anyone would agree that a
good relationship, including a marriage relationship, requires
communication.  Likewise, if a husband refuses to communicate with his
wife, he is not a good husband.
Someone who holds the view that a good husband locks his wife up in a room
and never speaks to her may have some basis for such an opinion (perhaps
when he talks to his wife, it always turns into a fight).  That doesn't
necissarily make his opinion right, though.

That's an extreme example, and I don't think you'll find many people
arguing against communication as a means to a healthy marraige.  But if
you apply the same principals to other moral/ethical matters, I think you
can see that there are many "wrong" oppinions.
Now, that's not to invalidate the individual, or the method by which they
came to their "wrong" opinions.  (Their methods may be faulty, but that's
another issue entirely.)

When we say that no opinion can be wrong because it is an opinion, then we
must also say that there is no objective truth to be found.  And anyone
who holds that viewpoint is inherantly contradicting themselves.  If we
assume that it is true that "there is no objective truth", then we are
assuming that there is a truth--that truth being that there is no truth. 
It's quite apparant how circular and illogical that conclusion is.
The U.S. constitution guarantees (or tries to) our freedom of expression
and belief.  This means that any man, woman, or child in the U.S. has (at
least in theory) the freedom to believe anything they wish--even if they
are wrong.  Beliefs are not guaranteed by law to be valid--they are simply
guaranteed the freedom to exist--even if they are wrong.

-- Jonathan



>> We all come to this conversation with different experiences,
>> understandings, and beliefs.  Some are undoubtedly wrong.  But just
>> because someone's opinion is different and/or wrong does not make them
>> an adversary.
>
> personally, i don't believe it is possible for an opinion to be
> wrong... in my mind, opinions just are...
>
> gLaNDix
>
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi



-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi