Freedom of speech and protest

[rederob]

Contrary to a certain zealously expressed opinion, from the resident religious zealot, facts either are, or are not! They do not speak for themselves(unless they are opinionated!)

Facts are things proven to be true.
Cats are or are not, so we don't play with trivialities.

 

[rederob]

I bypass the CO2 science as indeed there are greenhouse gases co2 ch4
or water
Let's drink wine to combat GW
And i am not going to repeat again that earth must have been a living superheated hell when co2 were 10 times aka 1000% higher..imagine..

We are aware of your ignorance of climate science, but how do your ideas about 1000% CO2 fit into what is presently happening given no humans were on the planet back then?

 

[wayneL]

We are aware of your ignorance of climate science, but how do your ideas about 1000% CO2 fit into what is presently happening given no humans were on the planet back then?

I have no idea of your qualifications Mr Red, but would posit that you are not in fact a climate scientist.

While cognizant that there are many alarmist scientists of various disciplines who dovetail rather nicely into your non scientific opinion, you clearly there are many other scientists of various disciplines related to climate study who are at odds with both yourself and alarmist scientists.

You clearly have a belief that your opinion is irrevocable, but equally clearly you areaexhibiting a humongous confirmation bias that is in no way scientific.

Additionally your penchant for immediately resorting to ad hominem argumentative fallacy shows that your opinion is rather more political and scientific.

I'm not a clinate scientist either, but I have been a consumer of various disciplines of science for quite a few decades now and I know how to read science.

Therefore your continuous claim that all are ignorant of climate science apart from you and basilio is shown to be utterly ludicrous.

That's my last word on the subject until such time as I decided to have more words on the subject, but in this arena discussion is nothing really more than a pxssing contest.

For now I am off to participate in more interesting and productive discussions.

 

[rederob]

I have no idea of your qualifications Mr Red, but would posit that you are not in fact a climate scientist.

While cognizant that there are many alarmist scientists of various disciplines who dovetail rather nicely into your non scientific opinion, you clearly there are many other scientists of various disciplines related to climate study who are at odds with both yourself and alarmist scientists.

You clearly have a belief that your opinion is irrevocable, but equally clearly you areaexhibiting a humongous confirmation bias that is in no way scientific.

Additionally your penchant for immediately resorting to ad hominem argumentative fallacy shows that your opinion is rather more political and scientific.

I'm not a clinate scientist either, but I have been a consumer of various disciplines of science for quite a few decades now and I know how to read science.

Therefore your continuous claim that all are ignorant of climate science apart from you and basilio is shown to be utterly ludicrous.

That's my last word on the subject until such time as I decided to have more words on the subject, but in this arena discussion is nothing really more than a pxssing contest.

For now I am off to participate in more interesting and productive discussions.

You have shown that without facts, all you are left with is opinion, and even then it was not enough so you ventured into dubious assumptions.

 

[cynic]

You have shown that without facts, all you are left with is opinion, and even then it was not enough so you ventured into dubious assumptions.

That is merely your opinion! The only facts I can espy, are the facts of the existence of opinions!!

There are opinions of what defines a fact, and there is the fact of those opinions (of that which defines a fact)!!! I challenge you to show me a fact, that is fact in, and, of itself, rather than merely someone's opinion of said fact!

 

[rederob]

That is merely your opinion! The only facts I can espy, are the facts of the existence of opinions!!

There are opinions of what defines a fact, and there is the fact of those opinions (of that which defines a fact)!!! I challenge you to show me a fact, that is fact in, and, of itself, rather than merely someone's opinion of said fact!

Temperature, velocity, mass, distance, sound, material objects, and those many other things which are self evident.
The other point you make is about what it means to have a language which allows us to distinguish things.
That you have expressed an opinion is a fact. It's a neat paradox that counters your ideas.

 

[cynic]

Temperature, velocity, mass, distance, sound, material objects, and those many other things which are self evident.
The other point you make is about what it means to have a language which allows us to distinguish things.
That you have expressed an opinion is a fact. It's a neat paradox that counters your ideas.

Yes! I have expressed an opinion! That seems to be the only fact, of which anyone can be reasonably certain.
All else, including our opinion of our sensory impressions of our purportedly tangible reality, is in fact, only our opinion of that which we have perceived!

 

[SirRumpole]

Temperature, velocity, mass, distance, sound, material objects, and those many other things which are self evident.
The other point you make is about what it means to have a language which allows us to distinguish things.
That you have expressed an opinion is a fact. It's a neat paradox that counters your ideas.

What's the epistemology of opinion vs belief robbie ?

 

[rederob]

Yes! I have expressed an opinion! That seems to be the only fact, of which anyone can be reasonably certain.
All else, including our opinion of our sensory impressions of our purportedly tangible reality, is in fact, only our opinion of that which we have perceived!

Have a long think about what you said, and tell me if you consider it actually makes sense.
I will be back to it tomorrow and comment if you have not in the interim.

 

[rederob]

What's the epistemology of opinion vs belief robbie ?

That question is nonsensical, so can you please rephrase it.

 

[cynic]

Have a long think about what you said, and tell me if you consider it actually makes sense.
I will be back to it tomorrow and comment if you have not in the interim.

I am more than happy for you to comment now.

My opinion is that you, will be expressing your considered opinion (usually one of contempt for opposing views), on the content and/or issuer of same.

But hey, that's just my opinion!

Prove me wrong!!

 

[rederob]

I am more than happy for you to comment now.
My opinion is that you, will be expressing your considered opinion (usually one of contempt for opposing views), on the content and/or issuer of same.
But hey, that's just my opinion!
Prove me wrong!!

All else, including our opinion of our sensory impressions of our purportedly tangible reality, is in fact, only our opinion of that which we have perceived!

You either know you have an experience of x, or you do not have an experience of x.
If you only have an "opinion" then reality to you is meaningless.
Moreover, you cannot presume to call the expression of your opinion as a fact because it becomes contradictory.

 

[cynic]

You either know you have an experience of x, or you do not have an experience of x.
If you only have an "opinion" then reality to you is meaningless.
Moreover, you cannot presume to call the expression of your opinion as a fact because it becomes contradictory.

Do opinions exist ?

 

[SirRumpole]

Do opinions exist ?

Yes, but that's only my opinion.

 

[rederob]

Do opinions exist ?

In your fabricated world that is not a meaningful sense.

 

[sptrawler]

And here is one to highlight people, who don't have a mirror in the house.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...list-morrison-government-20191015-p530yt.html

From the article:
Activist group GetUp will escalate its fight with Prime Minister Scott Morrison by accusing him of being an "authoritarian populist" who tries to shut down his critics.

Mr Morrison as a copy of populist leaders overseas who cannot take criticism, citing the Prime Minister's speech in August when he blamed the activist group for "bullying" opponents.

Democracy everywhere is under attack from right-wing populists who divide their countries into ‘us versus them' and then try to silence their opponents.

They're undermining traditional institutions, weakening the rule of law and destroying democratic norms.

"Facts get twisted and things get made up because the only goal is power.".

Well that nearly made me wet myself, when you think back to the bullying of Margret Court, Israel Folau, the current disruption in the streets, by a vocal minority who also have a fanatical belief that "their way, is the only way".
It is a shame these fanatical minorities, don't apply the same guidelines to their own behaviour, that they expect and even demand of others.

 

[cynic]

In your fabricated world that is not a meaningful sense.

Please clarify!

Is that a yes (i.e. opinions do exist), or a no (i.e. opinions do not exist)?

 

[Smurf1976]

Well that nearly made me wet myself, when you think back to the bullying of Margret Court, Israel Folau, the current disruption in the streets, by a vocal minority who also have a fanatical belief that "their way, is the only way".
It is a shame these fanatical minorities, don't apply the same guidelines to their own behaviour, that they expect and even demand of others.

I have strong disagreement with the views expressed by Folau but so far as I'm concerned he's fully entitled to express them without suffering undue consequences from doing so.

Comparing him to climate change activists, both have done essentially the same thing:

*Neither claim to be subject matter experts. That is, the are acting on a belief that what some higher source has told them is accurate.

*Both claim that the vast majority of the population have sinned in some way.

*Both claim that there will be serious consequences from continuing with this.

*A layperson is unable to verify the accuracy of their claims in both cases. To the extent that ordinary people have an understanding of religion or climate change, what they have is a belief that what someone else has told them is true or not true. Ordinary people are unable to verify the accuracy of the claims being made.

*Both bring similar consequences of potentially causing mental stress among those who believe the claims made to be true.

Same with most issues. Rarely is any preacher an actual expert on the subject. Rather, most are simply acting on a belief that what someone else has told them is true. Ask them some serious questions about the issue and you'll very quickly discover that they lack real knowledge - they're selling a message but they're not a real expert on the subject.

So far as free speech is concerned, whether or not you agree with what someone wishes to say is a very different concept to whether or not you agree that they ought to be able to say it. Personally well I don't agree with religion just as I don't like pretty much any electronic music and I don't generally agree with advertising. I wouldn't seek to prevent them however unless there's overwhelming evidence of actual harm.

 

[rederob]

Please clarify!
Is that a yes (i.e. opinions do exist), or a no (i.e. opinions do not exist)?

The reply was complete.
What is there to clarify?

 

[cynic]

The reply was complete.
What is there to clarify?

How about a straight answer , to a straightforward question, for which a simple "yes" or "no" should suffice :

Do opinions exist ?