|
Post by pre65 on May 19, 2015 11:41:55 GMT
Possibly not, but there are many and various American "muscle" cars that could set the pulse racing.
And what does a non car owning person know about the foibles of being a "petrol head" ?
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 12:02:44 GMT
Enough to make the last statement posting pedantry as lost the point .My point was the abscene of luxury cars in cuba had bugger all to do with us embargo or indeed any persons opinion on the quality of american cars .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 12:09:53 GMT
I'm a non-car owner as I can't drive. Doesn't stop me loving American Muscle cars though. Incidentally, for the price of the Grand Prix arm, you could have a brand new car and change to spare.
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on May 19, 2015 12:13:25 GMT
Enough to make the last statement posting pedantry as lost the point .My point was the abscene of luxury cars in cuba had bugger all to do with us embargo or indeed any persons opinion on the quality of american cars . Thing is Daniel, however wrong you might be, you are still entitled to your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 12:22:43 GMT
Of course in 21st century britain , some opinions you are not legally entitled to .
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on May 19, 2015 12:27:08 GMT
Of course in 21st century britain , some opinions you are not legally entitled to . That cannot be right.
NO ONE can take away ones right to an opinion.
Voicing that opinion might be a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 12:30:52 GMT
Is an opinion not voiced an opinion or simply a private thought .
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on May 19, 2015 12:35:55 GMT
Is an opinion not voiced an opinion or simply a private thought . According to the Cambridge dictionary an opinion is "a thought or belief about something or someone:" So one can hold an opinion without voicing it.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 12:53:52 GMT
I suspect you have paraphrased that definition to suit your argument .
Also , as opinions are differentiated from facts , it seems reasonable to assume that they must be voiced in order to be able to establish their status
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 19, 2015 12:56:47 GMT
I'm fairly certain you're allowed to have any opinion you like. I don't think we've quite become a Police state yet. I hope!
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on May 19, 2015 13:09:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on May 19, 2015 13:17:22 GMT
I suspect you have paraphrased that definition to suit your argument . Also , as opinions are differentiated from facts , it seems reasonable to assume that they must be voiced in order to be able to establish their status You've lost me DQ. Supposing you don't have some alternative sense in mind of which I'm unaware, "opinion" is, more or less, synonymous with "belief" or "view". Of course, opinions/beliefs/views are distinct from facts, for a variety of reasons, e.g., opinions/beliefs/views are paradigmatically mental states, and facts are not, though that's not to say there aren't facts which involve mental states, and of course opinions/beliefs/views can be true, and so they can take facts as their objects. But still, I don't follow why their distinction from facts requires their being voiced in order to establish anything. I don't wish to bog down this thread with a silly discussion of these matters, but I thought I'd at least register my confusion nonetheless
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 13:29:25 GMT
I'm fairly certain you're allowed to have any opinion you like. I don't think we've quite become a Police state yet. I hope! that would depend on if you are employing pre's defintion that an opinion can be a none vocalised thought or mine that all opinions must be expressed so they can be classified as opinions, simple truisms or facts . if the latter , then you most certainly cannot express any opinion you like . Additionally since the waive of terrorist based legislation there are approximately 50 people in prison for conspiracy to blow things up , ie not actually having done it but thinking about doing it .
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 13:43:06 GMT
I suspect you have paraphrased that definition to suit your argument . Also , as opinions are differentiated from facts , it seems reasonable to assume that they must be voiced in order to be able to establish their status You've lost me DQ. Supposing you don't have some alternative sense in mind of which I'm unaware, "opinion" is, more or less, synonymous with "belief" or "view". Of course, opinions/beliefs/views are distinct from facts, for a variety of reasons, e.g., opinions/beliefs/views are paradigmatically mental states, and facts are not, though that's not to say there aren't facts which involve mental states, and of course opinions/beliefs/views can be true, and so they can take facts as their objects. But still, I don't follow why their distinction from facts requires their being voiced in order to establish anything. I don't wish to bog down this thread with a silly discussion of these matters, but I thought I'd at least register my confusion nonetheless How do you decide if an opinion is an opinion or a fact , unless it is vocalized , written down or in some way communicated ? our language is imprecise and the fact that words are interchangeable as more to do with reality of everyday life than the actual meaning of words . in some contexts { legal , academic } it is necessary for precise meanings to be established and understanding is enhanced if opinion is differentiated from thoughts upon the basis that opinions are necessarily communicated . if an opinions are not differentiated from thoughts , then it will be for the thinker to decide if their thought is opinion or fact and that would be absurd ..
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on May 19, 2015 14:19:47 GMT
I don't understand your first question - you seem to be confusing the content of an opinion with the opinion itself. Example: I am of the opinion that it's currently raining; this is a mental state with a content, namely, the proposition: [It's currently raining]. Insofar as this opinion has this content, and so represents things as being a certain way, we can evaluate it for truth or falsity, simply by looking out of the window and considering whether the relevant proposition is true or false (as it happens it's true). If the proposition is true, that proposition is also a fact - facts being true propositions. So, there's no deciding whether an opinion is an opinion or a fact; an opinion is a mental state with a propositional content, a fact is true proposition - there's no question of their being identical. Of course, for any opinion we can raise the question as to whether it is true or false, which will amount to the question of whether or not its content is a fact (a true proposition). But opinions - or beliefs - that take true propositions as their contents are opinions/beliefs all the same. I don't understand why you might think that we're not in a position to assess the truth of an opinion without first expressing that opinion in language, or communicating it to an interlocutor - plausibly we do this all the time; again, I can assess the truth of my opinion that it's currently raining by simply looking out the window - no need vocalise anything. In general, thinkers will be perfectly well placed to confirm or dis-confirm vast swathes of their own opinions for themselves - I can't see any absurdity in this. Speaking with my academic hat on, I don't understand how the regimentation that opinions are necessarily communicated enhances our understanding of anything - seems more like Humpty-Dumptysim to me. But for all I know there are legal contexts in which it has some utility, I just can't imagine what they are.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 14:33:40 GMT
That is a confusing stream of consciousness , what as it got to do with the point , that the definition of opinions should be restricted to communicated matters and not actual thoughts .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 14:41:07 GMT
Heres an opinion. This thread has drifted........or is that a statement of fact?
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on May 19, 2015 14:42:32 GMT
That is a confusing stream of consciousness , what as it got to do with the point , that the definition of opinions should be restricted to communicated matters and not actual thoughts . I gave you a proper definition of "opinion" and you choose to ignore it. Why should your opinion on what is opinion take precedence over the fact of what opinion is ?
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on May 19, 2015 14:50:20 GMT
That is a confusing stream of consciousness , what as it got to do with the point , that the definition of opinions should be restricted to communicated matters and not actual thoughts . Oh dear - I'm sorry you found it confusing, it's just basic propositional attitude psychology. If the relevance of the post to the point is not clear to you then I'm unsure how to proceed. Apologies to all for veering waaay off topic
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 19, 2015 15:01:09 GMT
i did not find it confusing , i found it
a] irrelvant to the point b] written in a manner that suggests cut and past thinking rather than true understanding .
|
|