> > >And, btw, your opinion is wrong.
> > A) Uh..isn't the point of an opinion that it isn't necessarily wrong or right? That's why it's opinion & not fact.
> No, and this is a disturbing little bete noir of Internet discussiont hat drives me mad. Opinions can most certainly be right or wrong. History books are littered with examples of bad, wrong, stupid, and malicious opinions.
Good or bad, sure. Stupid, ignorant, malicious, yeah...agreed. Wrong, I don't agree with. (and no, wrong & bad aren't synonomous.) To say someone's opinion -- their thoughts on some matter is blatantly, outright, wrong implies that your opinion is the one that's right. So what if someone else comes along and proves you're opinion isn't entirely right after all? What happens to Joe Schmoe #1 that you said was wrong? For example:
Say I sit here and go into a diatribe about how godawful a character um...Red Wolf is. I launch into a reasonable arguement, etc etc, but the bottom line is that I just don't see the appeal. So someone else comes along and says I'm wrong, and rattles off anything and everything remotely virutuous about the guy. Then, a couple months later, someone else comes along with an even more compelling case of why old Talltrees should've been lumberjacked a long time ago. Who's right or wrong? Nobody, it's all opinion.
That's the kind of thing I'm getting at.
This instance is different, though. In this case, Attok said that in his opinion something that was said was insulting to him, and Dan said his opinion was wrong. Did I miss somewhere where Dan Slott became the expert on Attok's point of view and could make that particular call? Although, it was probably not Attok's best choice to start the post off with "this isn't an slam Dan Slott thread"...that kind of thing just screams "kick me in the junk!"
> The idea that opinion s and facts are utterly separate creatures is simply erroneous; we form opinions about
~~Exactly. ABOUT them. Still two seperate entities. They work together, certainly...can't & won't argue against that. But they ARE two seperate things. Opinions in & of themselves aren't factual, they're conclusions drawn from facts presented, and biased to our own personal perspectives.
>Opinions can also be in error if they're inconsistently expressed;
~~THAT I agree with. But that's the presentation that changes things, rather than the opinion. I pointed that out in my other response.
>Stingray and Crossfire have the best costumes in the Marvel Universe,
~~I wouldn't argue
> We generally have reasons for our opinions. Where those reasons are wrong or lacking, our opinions can certainly become less valuable, less meaningful...and, in short, "bad" or "wrong."
Less valuable and less meaningful don't equate to wrong, though. Just because someone doesn't agree with something doesn't necessarily make it wrong. There are obvious and extreme examples to the contrary, of course -- the nutjob that believes its his right to kill the neighbor because the neighbor's dog crapped in his yard, is more than likely wrong, unless he lives in some sort of Mad Max/Jericho post apocalyptic place like my old hometown. You can find extreme examples for pretty much any arguement though.