Freedom of speech and protest

[rederob]

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

The answer was complete as it it satisfied the nature of the world you perceive.

 

[cynic]

The answer was complete as it it satisfied the nature of the world you perceive.

You still have not answered:

Do opinions exist ?

 

[sptrawler]

It is really strange that only the bullies, have the right to call everyone else a bully, who doesn't agree with them.

It appears to me that every cause is trying to take on board the religious prophecy, "the meek shall inherit the World" and they will bully, bash and browbeat everyone, that stands in the way of their inheritance.

 

[Smurf1976]

Opinions are not equal.

Agreed.

A related issue however is the public's apparent loss of confidence in certain groups.

Business is one such example. Asbestos, tobacco, various drugs, all sorts of pesticides and so on. All "won't hurt you" until it turned out that actually they're a rather big problem yes.

Anyone associated with the economics profession, including by default all politicians, is another. All that "microeconomic reform" as it was called. De-regulate and sell off anything and everything. Some of the earlier ones seemed to work, eg aviation, but then there's private health insurance, electricity, gas, communications networks, toll roads and so on all of which have ended up becoming rather costly to ordinary consumers and business alike. Don't even mention banking. Most ordinary people can see that it hasn't simply cost them a few $ but has pretty much stuffed the competitiveness of the entire economy.

Churches let's not go there. One word says enough.

Then there's unions selling out workers either directly or by endorsing unfavourable political candidates or policies because they just happen to originate from the ALP.

Universities were once held in very high regard as were their academics. The knowledge is still there but that respect is now tainted by the pursuit of profit.

So part of the problem is that experts and others once held in high regard are substantially discredited these days. No longer does the public trust that someone who's an expert in whatever is going to tell them the truth on that subject. It's not 1979 anymore when an ordinary person could rely on a bank manager giving them sound advice, utilities actively steered consumers toward the cheapest option by default and state governments were willing to fight their own party at the federal level in an effort to advantage their own state.

Now it's far more "everyone for themselves" hence the lack of trust in anyone professing to be an expert.

 

[sptrawler]

You pretty well nailed it there smurf.

Credibility as we once knew it has been lost, now there is the rise of those who are articulate and suffer from verbosity, they can defend the indefensible by arguing the intricacies at the cost of common sense.

 

[SirRumpole]

You still have not answered:

I wouldn't worry about rob, he never answers a straight question he just insults people.

Opinions are a expression of belief, I think that just about covers it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Now it's far more "everyone for themselves" hence the lack of trust in anyone professing to be an expert.

It's hard to see what our Chief Scientist had going for himself when he presented his report on the energy sector, but there are people who would ascribe underhand motives to what he said.

That says more about them than him I'd suggest and lining them all up for a Q&A would soon embarrass the criticisers, but again that Q&A itself would be seen by some as a political exercise.

A no win situation.

 

[rederob]

I wouldn't worry about rob, he never answers a straight question he just insults people.
Opinions are a expression of belief, I think that just about covers it.

You simply do not like the answers so consider them insults, as I can assure you I do answer straight questions.
@cynic does not consider there are things commonly known as "facts" and merely considers them "opinions" based on perception. In such a word of his making he has excluded the possibility of "realities," things which are tangible and therefore are normally considered to exist. Such a stance is dichotomous: there is either reality or there is not.
The problem with @cynic's ideas about opinion of perception is its essential contradiction. The moment I answered his question all readers experienced the reality of seeing a reply on whatever device they use to view this thread. The reply became a "fact." So carefully read what @cynic has posted on this point and you will see he disputes this version of our nature.

 

[rederob]

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.

This is a serious case of false equivalence.
The "bridge" that crosses a river is different to the "bridge" that close a gap in a negotiation.
As is the belief which is commonly held without evidence - such as in gods - compared with the belief we have in things which are evident, which we can call justified true belief to ensure the distinction.
Although it does not mean some of your points are not valid, it does mean that your argument is unsound.
Examples:

*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.

If you accept that we know things, such as the bottom of the ocean has volcanoes, the speed of light can be calculated, and that the right type of matter as big as your fist can destroy a city, then you have a basis for justified true belief. Put another way, if you did not know, there would be way to show you it was true.
We do not need to be subject experts to "know" things because we have a reasoned basis for trusting people that are trained to tell us the truth about what they learn.

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

I am not aware of this argument.
Climate change is about attribution, and now that we know its principal cause we should act to mitigate it. Industrialisation has been the main contributor to GHGs and this occurred in nations with relatively small populations for several centuries before China began to industrialise.

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

Those of us who are "old" will know from actual experience that weather patterns have changed considerably. The Australian perspective of more bush fires of greater intensity occurring earlier and persisting for longer is tangible. Farmers who for decades relied on reliable irrigation waters are moving off the land.

*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.

To make this claim you have to prove that historical climate records are completely unreliable or fraudulent, and are hidden to us. You would have to show that equations for energy balance models were wrong, and that it was not possible to measure incoming and outgoing (energy) radiation. You would have to show that the lay person could not be educated to understand climate basics.
More importantly, you would need to show that we have no basis for letting science inform us about what we come to know. If climate science is made out by many to be a religion, it is at least one which is tangible in terms of copious evidence.

 

[wayneL]

And it looks like Robee has appointed himself final arbiter of all that is reality.

 

[rederob]

And it looks like Robee has appointed himself final arbiter of all that is reality.

Please reflect on your post as a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem.

 

[cynic]

You simply do not like the answers so consider them insults, as I can assure you I do answer straight questions.

Says the man repeatedly refusing to answer a simple direct question for which a simple "yes","no" (or perhaps even "do not know") would have sufficed!

@cynic does not consider there are things commonly known as "facts" and merely considers them "opinions" based on perception. In such a word of his making he has excluded the possibility of "realities," things which are tangible and therefore are normally considered to exist. Such a stance is dichotomous: there is either reality or there is not.
The problem with @cynic's ideas about opinion of perception is its essential contradiction. The moment I answered his question all readers experienced the reality of seeing a reply on whatever device they use to view this thread. The reply became a "fact." So carefully read what @cynic has posted on this point and you will see he disputes this version of our nature.

Given that you have chosen not to cooperate with my efforts to alert you to the presence of some important distinctions between facts, and the expressed opinons of same, I consider it inappropriate for you to presume to know what my stance in this matter actually is.

Of course you are entitled to freely express your opinion about what you may think a person's particular stance is...

...and that person is also entitled to freely express their opinion about your opinion of their stance!

I do so now!

Your opinion of my particular stance is seriously amiss!!

 

[rederob]

Given that you have chosen not to cooperate with my efforts to alert you to the presence of some important distinctions between facts, and the expressed opinons of same, I consider it inappropriate for you to presume to know what my stance in this matter actually is.

You position is in print, in this thread so nothing is presumed.
Your world is contradictory: if you consider everything perceived as opinion, then it can have no reality.

 

[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!

What I have highlighted above is a contradiction.
If there is a tangible reality, then what you experience cannot be an opinion.

 

[cynic]

What I have highlighted above is a contradiction.
If there is a tangible reality, then what you experience cannot be an opinion.

There is a distinction between experience and opinion - and it is one that you seem to have completely neglected here!

Must I now also explain that particular distinction ?!!

 

[rederob]

There is a distinction between experience and opinion - and it is one that you seem to have completely neglected here!
Must I now also explain that particular distinction ?!!

There is indeed.
However, you have made very clear statements about what you have "perceived" which means you have become aware of things through "experience."

 

[cynic]

There is indeed.
However, you have made very clear statements about what you have "perceived" which means you have become aware of things through "experience."

What of it?!

How does that justify your misunderstanding (and subsequent misconstruance) of

...
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!

?!!

 

[rederob]

What of it?!
How does that justify your misunderstanding (and subsequent misconstruance) of
?!!

You posts are available to others, so they can decide on what has been responded to here.
I stay on task, and in this case it is about what constitutes "reality."

 

[cynic]

You posts are available to others, so they can decide on what has been responded to here.
I stay on task, and in this case it is about what constitutes "reality."

Great!!

Let's talk about reality!

Are opinions real?!!

 

[wayneL]

Please reflect on your post as a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem.

Well you made the rules, Champ