(Dec 12, 2016 11:36 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Seems abit 1984-ish to me. Maybe my opinion doesn't rely on argumentation. Maybe it is a complex mixture of intuition, moral value, experience, and aesthetic preference rather than rational arguments. People can form opinions for any number of reasons. Just because they don't submit to stern logical analysis doesn't mean we have no right to have them.
Does no one actually read the article? It has nothing to do with "having opinions" and everything to do with expecting others to take them seriously.
(Dec 12, 2016 11:40 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 12, 2016 11:36 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Seems abit 1984-ish to me. Maybe my opinion doesn't rely on argumentation. Maybe it is a complex mixture of intuition, moral value, experience, and aesthetic preference rather than rational arguments. People can form opinions for any number of reasons. Just because they don't submit to stern logical analysis doesn't mean we have no right to have them.
Does no one actually read the article? It has nothing to do with "having opinions" and everything to do with expecting others to take them seriously.
Then that article is mistitled..
When I click on the link I only get a perfume ad that won't go away. I'm not going to fuck around with pop-ups all day..
(Dec 12, 2016 11:45 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 12, 2016 11:40 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Does no one actually read the article? It has nothing to do with "having opinions" and everything to do with expecting others to take them seriously.
Then that article is mistitled..
When I click on the link I only get a perfume ad that won't go away. I'm not going to fuck around with pop-ups all day..
Maybe you shouldn't opine about things you can't be bothered to read. But that does make you a perfect example of the problem addressed in the article.
(Dec 12, 2016 11:49 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 12, 2016 11:45 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 12, 2016 11:40 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Does no one actually read the article? It has nothing to do with "having opinions" and everything to do with expecting others to take them seriously.
Then that article is mistitled..
When I click on the link I only get a perfume ad that won't go away. I'm not going to fuck around with pop-ups all day..
Maybe you shouldn't opine about things you can't be bothered to read. But that does make you a perfect example of the problem addressed in the article.
Oh is the article yet another excuse for flaming people who wont agree with you? Sounds like it. Think I'll skip it.
(Dec 12, 2016 11:53 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Oh is the article yet another excuse for flaming people who wont agree with you? Sounds like it. Think I'll skip it.
You know, if you had a bare minimum of intellectual honesty, you could have googled the title of this thread and found this as the very first result:
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not...inion-9978
"Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”
A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible."
Once again, and I think that it's important to say this, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But having said that, nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. That's what intellectual freedom is all about.
I don't know how this professor expects that he can prevent his students from forming their own opinions. They are going to think for themselves whether he likes it or not. So in effect he's just telling them to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
That's appalling coming from somebody who is ostensibly a philosophy teacher. Philosophy teachers should be encouraging their students not to keep silent but rather to craft the best arguments that they can. The class should be discussing arguments that students, the authors of assigned readings and the instructor throw out. I don't know how that's possible without people expressing their opinions about the strength and plausibility of the arguments.
There's no way that students are going to participate in philosophizing (however amateurishly at first) without somebody being willing stick their neck out and risk saying something. So the class has to be conducted in a friendly manner, where people are encouraged to speak up and get positive reinforcement for doing it.
Trying to intimidate one's students into silence is exactly what a philosophy teacher should not be doing.
(Dec 12, 2016 06:16 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.
Okay. Let’s use his "ginger" example, shall we?
There’s a huge difference between how the professor handles rhetoric vs. how you're handling it.
We’re a curious bunch. We all love to venture down the rabbit hole, but with you we think, "oh shit…*sniff-sniff* this isn’t a rabbit hole. It’s an asshole." We all have one. Some people like assholes, some don’t, and their preference is beyond question.
(Dec 13, 2016 07:05 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, and I think that it's important to say this, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But having said that, nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. That's what intellectual freedom is all about.
I don't know how this professor expects that he can prevent his students from forming their own opinions. They are going to think for themselves whether he likes it or not. So in effect he's just telling them to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
That's appalling coming from somebody who is ostensibly a philosophy teacher. Philosophy teachers should be encouraging their students not to keep silent but rather to craft the best arguments that they can. The class should be discussing arguments that students, the authors of assigned readings and the instructor throw out. I don't know how that's possible without people expressing their opinions about the strength and plausibility of the arguments.
There's no way that students are going to participate in philosophizing (however amateurishly at first) without somebody being willing stick their neck out and risk saying something. So the class has to be conducted in a friendly manner, where people are encouraged to speak up and get positive reinforcement for doing it.
Trying to intimidate one's students into silence is exactly what a philosophy teacher should not be doing.
All the professor is saying is
nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. I can't fathom where you're getting this notion that anyone says you can't have an opinion. Where are you reading that?
entitled - believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment
privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity
granted or available only to a particular person or group of people
Entitlements are something granted externally. So saying you are entitled to your opinions presupposes others grant them some degree of legitimacy. There's a difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You do have a
right to have your own opinions, but you are not
entitled to have those opinions legitimized, acknowledged, affirmed, or respected by others.
(Dec 13, 2016 07:12 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 12, 2016 06:16 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.
Okay. Let’s use his "ginger" example, shall we?
There’s a huge difference between how the professor handles rhetoric vs. how you're handling it.
We’re a curious bunch. We all love to venture down the rabbit hole, but with you we think, "oh shit…*sniff-sniff* this isn’t a rabbit hole. It’s an asshole." We all have one. Some people like assholes, some don’t, and their preference is beyond question.
Do you ever post anything but personal attacks anymore? Do you understand the difference between a right and an entitlement?
(Dec 13, 2016 08:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 13, 2016 07:05 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, and I think that it's important to say this, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But having said that, nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. That's what intellectual freedom is all about.
I don't know how this professor expects that he can prevent his students from forming their own opinions. They are going to think for themselves whether he likes it or not. So in effect he's just telling them to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves.
That's appalling coming from somebody who is ostensibly a philosophy teacher. Philosophy teachers should be encouraging their students not to keep silent but rather to craft the best arguments that they can. The class should be discussing arguments that students, the authors of assigned readings and the instructor throw out. I don't know how that's possible without people expressing their opinions about the strength and plausibility of the arguments.
There's no way that students are going to participate in philosophizing (however amateurishly at first) without somebody being willing stick their neck out and risk saying something. So the class has to be conducted in a friendly manner, where people are encouraged to speak up and get positive reinforcement for doing it.
Trying to intimidate one's students into silence is exactly what a philosophy teacher should not be doing.
All the professor is saying is nobody else is obligated to take those opinions seriously. I can't fathom where you're getting this notion that anyone says you can't have an opinion. Where are you reading that?
entitled - believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment
privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people
Entitlements are something granted externally. So saying you are entitled to your opinions presupposes others grant them some degree of legitimacy. There's a difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You do have a right to have your own opinions, but you are not entitled to have those opinions legitimized, acknowledged, affirmed, or respected by others.
(Dec 13, 2016 07:12 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 12, 2016 06:16 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.
Okay. Let’s use his "ginger" example, shall we?
There’s a huge difference between how the professor handles rhetoric vs. how you're handling it.
We’re a curious bunch. We all love to venture down the rabbit hole, but with you we think, "oh shit…*sniff-sniff* this isn’t a rabbit hole. It’s an asshole." We all have one. Some people like assholes, some don’t, and their preference is beyond question.
Do you ever post anything but personal attacks anymore? Do you understand the difference between a right and an entitlement?
entitlement
NOUN
1 [noun] The fact of having a right to something:
‘full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered’
Source:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ntitlement
(Dec 13, 2016 08:24 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 13, 2016 08:04 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]entitled - believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment
privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people
Entitlements are something granted externally. So saying you are entitled to your opinions presupposes others grant them some degree of legitimacy. There's a difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You do have a right to have your own opinions, but you are not entitled to have those opinions legitimized, acknowledged, affirmed, or respected by others.
entitlement
NOUN
1 [noun] The fact of having a right to something:
‘full entitlement to fees and maintenance should be offered’
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ntitlement
Is that supposed to refute something? Look at that usage example. Who is entitled, and who provides the "fees and maintenance"? Entitlement entails obligation, where rights do not. Entitlement is a positive right, while true rights are negative rights. Negative rights do not obligate anyone else, so they do not violate anyone's rights. Positive rights must violate someone's right to make them provide another's entitlement.