Calla's Fourty-First Post

Probably that's supposed to say "forty-first" but I don't understand why, so it says "fourty-first."

OK, I have to go to school in about 20 minutes, but I need to get this off my chest before I go. I am about to go to a class entitled "Crime, Incarceration and the City." I had to read the first chapter or the introduction or something to a book by some person entitled "Crimes against logic." It was a few pages about how people do NOT have rights to their own opinions. This person goes through some complex argument about how rights require that other people have duties or they aren't really rights in the first place, and about how people do not want to know the real truth.

Well, here is where I take issue. This man or woman is an idiot. I don't think s/he knows what the word opinion means. All of the examples in the text happen to be MATTERS OF FACT not MATTERS OF OPINION. They're two entirely different things. So, people can argue about the reason Bush went into Iraq or whether or not God exists or if a car is coming or not. . . and those people are not arguing about opinions at all. They are arguing about facts. And someone is indeed wrong in every case.

A matter of opinion is something that can be true for one person and not another. For example, are ghosts bands funny? There is no wrong answer. The answer FOR ME, is yes. The answer for you can be yes, no, sometimes, only on Fridays. . . whatever. It is a matter of opinion.

The reason Bush went into Iraq has the same answer no matter who is asked. Now, I think this author is confused because some of these are facts which are not easily distinguishable as true or false, wrong or right. People can argue about God, both present arguments, and maybe you are an agnostic, and cannot tell who is right and who is wrong. This does not mean it is a matter of opinion whether or not God exists. This means someone is stupid. Someone is wrong

So, if someone pulls a "I have the right to my own opinion" bullshit during an argument that is a matter of fact, it does not make logical sense to go through a series of explanations about why s/he does NOT have a right to that opinion. No, it makes sense to say, "this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact. And the facts that you are presenting are wrong because of A,B,C, and D." Then here is where you present your argument about why YOUR FACTS (not your opinions) are correct. And maybe you will never come to a conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. But at least we won't be pretending we are offering opinions.

Green is pretty. Blue is ugly. - Those are my opinions.

Eating meat is immoral. - That is a fact. And if you want to argue against it and present a varying view, it will not be an opinion. You will simply be trying to make me understand meat the way you see it. But, bottom line, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. (also, I'm right. I will argue with you and prove your facts false! Meat is murder.)

Sometimes fallacies are just that. . . not opinions, but fallacies. . .


Maybe this post should be titled differently. I don't really know.

Love,
Calla and her kitties.

I will add the picture later.