
No, you're not entitled to your opinion (2012) - mpweiher
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
======
jacquesm
This ties in directly with 'balance' in reporting, in how when one side of an
argument gets a certain amount of time the other side - no matter how crackpot
insane it is - is supposed to get equal coverage because that's 'fair'. Ditto
education. Equal time for creationism and other bs can be traced back directly
to the perceived right to have an opinion and that all voices are equal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_publ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy)

------
hilbert42
“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.” -- Patrick Stokes

Methinks Stokes has valid point, shame his position isn't the norm these days.

My background isn't philosophy, rather it's engineering; nevertheless many
years ago I studied philosophy and it's one of the best things I've done.
Whilst it's far from being a universal panacea, philosophy helped me to
develop a more balanced and nuanced worldview on many a subject. It's enabled
me to argue logically and to detect BS and sweeping statements made without
supporting evidence a mile off; and in argument to know the difference between
'subject' and 'predicate'! Moreover, I'm often skeptical of my own
ideas—especially so if I've not bothered to argue my case through.

I was enthralled when I first read Book I of Plato's Republic—'Of Wealth,
Justice, Moderation, and Their Opposites'—I recall being amazed that a book so
old could contain such cleaver and sophisticated arguments.

In this remarkable work Plato explains the meaning of 'justice' by using
formal argument which inevitably leads the reader to one logical conclusion.
This brilliant argument takes the form of a dialogue between the sophist
Thrasymachus and philosopher Socrates and begins with Thrasymachus holding a
worldview that 'justice is everyman for himself', and—step after logical
step—it ends with Socrates having completely demolished this view and offering
up a much better one. This is wonderful stuff, and it's little wonder that
it's endured for nearly two and half millennia.

Technological and political changes over the last 30 or 40 years have meant
that nowadays almost everyone has gained a voice irrespective of their
expertise or experience—it's Warhol's '15 minutes of fame' effect. However,
unfortunately these days this gain has been at the expense of formal argument
much of which has been lost from the public discourse. Even worse, the
precious little logical argument that actually remains is now lost in a
background noisy dissonance and cacophony.

------
sharemywin
See autism isn't listed as a serious side effect from the CDC website:

Severe events have very rarely been reported following MMR vaccination, and
might also happen after MMRV. These include:

Deafness, Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, Brain damage

[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-
effects.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm)

------
IntronExon
If you get past the provocative headline, it’s a well written, and considered
piece. I especially enjoyed his advice about inquiring as to why someone
believes they’re entitled to their opinion when that phrase is used to
shutdown debate.

