Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    "Valid opinion". How can an opinion be "valid"? Sorry if that's already been mentioned, can't be bothered going through the thread!
    It was debated at some length, pages 2-3 I think, in terms of "opinion". Validity in inference from prejudiced generalisations to specifics about particular persons was also raised as an issue.
    It's not a particularly long thread...

    ZarathustraX

    EDIT: Actually, to add to this discussion: I think an opinion can be valid, unless you're defining "valid" in a strictly logical sense (which would make no sense anyway, as it applies only to arguments - you don't get "opinions" in which the conclusion is necessitated by the premises!). Just googled to double-check, and most definitions of "valid" that don't turn on the purely logical sense just mentioned use words such as "justifiable" or "well grounded", both of which are properites that I believe opinions are capable of possessing. Why do you argue (well ok, imply) that an opinion can't be valid?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    It was debated at some length, pages 2-3 I think, in terms of "opinion". Validity in inference from prejudiced generalisations to specifics about particular persons was also raised as an issue.
    It's not a particularly long thread...

    ZarathustraX

    EDIT: Actually, to add to this discussion: I think an opinion can be valid, unless you're defining "valid" in a strictly logical sense (which would make no sense anyway, as it applies only to arguments - you don't get "opinions" in which the conclusion is necessitated by the premises!). Just googled to double-check, and most definitions of "valid" that don't turn on the purely logical sense just mentioned use words such as "justifiable" or "well grounded", both of which are properites that I believe opinions are capable of possessing. Why do you argue (well ok, imply) that an opinion can't be valid?
    But surely whether an opinion is "valid" or not is usually a matter of opinion!

    Bit of a circular argument you've got going there. In my opinion any opinion is "valid" because of the above.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    But surely whether an opinion is "valid" or not is usually a matter of opinion!

    Bit of a circular argument you've got going there. In my opinion any opinion is "valid" because of the above.

    Hmmmm....good point.

    Ok, an opinion is valid if it is supported by reasons that may be verified by other people (ie. not just by more opinions). This definition of valid opinions is generally accepted and is therefore not simply my opinion. So there is a criterion for measuring the validity of opinions, and it is not just my opinion that this is how we should measure opinions.
    And I even added in the verifiability clause so people can't just say "in my opinion that's not a reason!"

    *Cringes*

    Does that get me off the hook?

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Hmmmm....good point.

    Ok, an opinion is valid if it is supported by reasons that may be verified by other people (ie. not just by more opinions). This definition of valid opinions is generally accepted and is therefore not simply my opinion. So there is a criterion for measuring the validity of opinions, and it is not just my opinion that this is how we should measure opinions.
    And I even added in the verifiability clause so people can't just say "in my opinion that's not a reason!"

    *Cringes*

    Does that get me off the hook?

    ZarathustraX
    But surely if an opinion can be "verified" then it ceases to be an opinion, and becomes more simply a statement of fact, which can be either true or false. If it remains subjective than all you can "verify" it with is more opinions, proving nothing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annabellewalter)
    In my personal opinion homophobia is disgusting, but I wanna know what you all think, do I have the right to hate it? What do you think?
    i think having prejudices is natural and can't be helped. we can't trust everyone and like everything, it's contrary to our innate survival instincts. people have a right to be homophobic or racist if that's the way they want to live, they just don't have the right to harm anyone. i believe that ultimately we should strive to be open to learning about the things we don't understand because it's better for ourselves and society as a whole. unfortunately you can't change peoples' minds and by hating homophobes you're actually just as bad as they are.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by calumc)
    But surely whether an opinion is "valid" or not is usually a matter of opinion!
    Not really.
    About a month ago, on this forum, there was a discussion on what makes a person a homosexual. All of the reasons were opinions. For this argument, I'll add a couple.

    Genetic defect
    congenital birth defect
    childhood trauma
    consorting with homosexuals
    God punished the mother of the homosexual
    born under the wrong star

    Are all these opinions valid?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with those who said there needs to be an in-between. It's obviously an opinion and everyone has the right to have them, but i still dont think people should hate gays "just because".
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    all for it to be honest, and as for those people who think gays should have Kids, dont get me ****ing started......
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Not really.
    About a month ago, on this forum, there was a discussion on what makes a person a homosexual. All of the reasons were opinions. For this argument, I'll add a couple.

    Genetic defect
    congenital birth defect
    childhood trauma
    consorting with homosexuals
    God punished the mother of the homosexual
    born under the wrong star

    Are all these opinions valid?
    No, because i hate people that take scientific fact, and then abuse them for their own ends. To say homosexuality is a congenital birth defect is stupid, but at the same time you can't ever disprove it with 100% so the opinion still stands. The simple fact is hundreds of studies have still not found anything geneticlly or physically predisposing to homosexuality, which kind of negates the first two. And no childhood trauma has been linked to homosexuality either. Though it has been linked to becoming an abuser yourself, and mental disease.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Not really.
    About a month ago, on this forum, there was a discussion on what makes a person a homosexual. All of the reasons were opinions. For this argument, I'll add a couple.

    Genetic defect
    congenital birth defect
    childhood trauma
    consorting with homosexuals
    God punished the mother of the homosexual
    born under the wrong star

    Are all these opinions valid?
    Yes.


    In my opinion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katiesado)
    i think having prejudices is natural and can't be helped. we can't trust everyone and like everything, it's contrary to our innate survival instincts. people have a right to be homophobic or racist if that's the way they want to live, they just don't have the right to harm anyone. i believe that ultimately we should strive to be open to learning about the things we don't understand because it's better for ourselves and society as a whole. unfortunately you can't change peoples' minds and by hating homophobes you're actually just as bad as they are.
    Good point.

    You're all a bunch of ignorant bigoted homophobephobes! You *******s!!

    The usual lines of argument/tripe apply - "blanket generalisations", "how can you say that about every single..." etc.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    An interesting misunderstanding of that would be: Homosexuality is hereditary!

    I tried to hit both buttons on the poll, because I believe that it is a valid opinion but at the same time utterly obnoxious. If that seems contradictory, maybe I can explain further.

    Just like extreme right-wing or religions fundamentalist beliefs, the belief must be viewed as valid, otherwise what happens to freedom of opinion? And if some are valid and others not, where does one draw the line, and where will we find someone 100% neutral on every issue to do the drawing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    No, because i hate people that take scientific fact, and then abuse them for their own ends. To say homosexuality is a congenital birth defect is stupid, but at the same time you can't ever disprove it with 100% so the opinion still stands. The simple fact is hundreds of studies have still not found anything geneticlly or physically predisposing to homosexuality, which kind of negates the first two. And no childhood trauma has been linked to homosexuality either. Though it has been linked to becoming an abuser yourself, and mental disease.
    Oh quit your whining you.

    They're all perfectly valid opinions. If it's my opinion that people will be gay if they're born at five past eleven on the second tuesday after Easter then so be it, and you'd have to try pretty hard to "prove" me wrong!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    No, because i hate people that take scientific fact, and then abuse them for their own ends. To say homosexuality is a congenital birth defect is stupid, but at the same time you can't ever disprove it with 100% so the opinion still stands. The simple fact is hundreds of studies have still not found anything geneticlly or physically predisposing to homosexuality, which kind of negates the first two. And no childhood trauma has been linked to homosexuality either. Though it has been linked to becoming an abuser yourself, and mental disease.
    Oh quit your whining you.

    They're all perfectly valid opinions. If it's my opinion that people will be gay if they're born at five past eleven on the second tuesday after Easter then so be it, and you'd have to try pretty hard to "prove" me wrong!

    foolfarian, hardly anything can be proved 100%. Mathematical statements yes, but that's about it. Hard cheese for the rest of us. Even scientists. They are supposed to say "this evidence appears to support the hypothesis" not "this evidence proves the theory".

    calumc, your 'oh quit your whining' appears flatly to contradict the rest of your post by implying that foolfarian does not have a valid opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    calumc, your 'oh quit your whining' appears flatly to contradict the rest of your post by implying that foolfarian does not have a valid opinion.
    In which case you appear to have misinterpreted it. I have argued with him before and he comes across as a whiney *****. Thus my assertion has everything to do with his manner, and nothing to do with his opinion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annabellewalter)
    I am not turning this into a victim issue? Why do you assume I am not gay?
    Your sexuality was furthest from my thoughts to be honest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaz031)
    Young people could be. If the alternative sexuality becomes widely accepted or encouraged in some circumstances I think this will take advantage of their vunerability.
    I'm assuming you're straight here, but you must find that heterosexuality is extremely unappealing if you think that people can be simply coerced into being gay! If it was so easy to turn someone from one sexuality to antoher surely all of the gay people before the 1960s would have been turned straight with no effort at all, rather than being subjected to horrific and unsuccessful "scientific" treatments, as they were.

    It is very difficult to think of a real life situation where homosexuality is actively ecouraged at least in this country. Have you ever heard of a teacher actually saying "you should be gay, it's better than being straight"?

    To imply that people who are gay have any choice in the matter, to insinuate that they would ever actively decide to subject themselves to the verbal, mental and often physical abuse that many gay people go through because of their sexuality, is, quite frankly, offensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thekillersrock)

    To imply that people who are gay have any choice in the matter, to insinuate that they would ever actively decide to subject themselves to the verbal, mental and often physical abuse that many gay people go through because of their sexuality, is, quite frankly, offensive.
    I think you're painting a portrait of gays as feeble limp-wristed types who spend their entire lives being abused in all sorts of awful ways. I think this relies more on a Mr.Humphreys type illusion than any reality.

    Gays are just as capable as standing up for themselves as any other minority. If you call a black man "****** boy" you can expect a good hiding. And there are lots of gays than would punch your lights out if you called then a "******" They are not all effeminate hairdressers as you seem to imply.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    But surely if an opinion can be "verified" then it ceases to be an opinion, and becomes more simply a statement of fact, which can be either true or false. If it remains subjective than all you can "verify" it with is more opinions, proving nothing.
    I said that the reasons somebody uses to support an opinion should be verifiable. Obviously opinions themselves cannot be "verified", for the reasons that you suggest.
    To clarify: the opinion "Homosexuals are all immoral pr*cks and therefore should be shot" is unverifiable, but in support of it someone may offer the reason "because they all abuse innocent children" - the reason, whilst clearly false, is verifiable.
    To go back to my original point, I think that if the reasons that a person gives for their opinion are true (which presupposes that they may be verified), and actually support their view, then their opinion is valid. Possibly not correct, but valid.
    Does that make sense now?

    To give another example opinion, proposed by your good self:
    (Original post by calumc)
    They're all perfectly valid opinions. If it's my opinion that people will be gay if they're born at five past eleven on the second tuesday after Easter then so be it, and you'd have to try pretty hard to "prove" me wrong!
    If it is your opinion that [read above], then that is a valid opinion if the verifiable facts of the situation lend support to your hypothesis. Ie. If all people born at five past eleven on the second tuesday after Easter actually were gay. Personally, I doubt any research that you could do on such people would support this...
    :p:

    ZarathustraX
    Offline

    13
    Why is the word 'homophobia' used to describe those people who view same genital sex as unnatural?

    Because a person does not think that the act of intercourse between two people of the same sex is natural, it does not mean they 'hate' or 'fear' homosexuals/homosexuality.

    Again, a word has been misappropriated to describe something else, same as the word 'gay'. :confused:
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.