whichone
I wrote a
MUCH longer text, but then I realized that this childish debate is below my level and I did not want to fall to your level. So I'll end this discussion with something simple that even a child would understand.
A blue man and a red man live in the same street.
The red man hates dogs and loves cats.
The blue man loves cats and hates dogs.
Since you seem to have a patent for the truth, you can certainly tell me which one has the right opinion.
Because their opinions on the
same thing are contradictory, according to your logic, one of them has a wrong opinion.
You stated that opinions cannot be wrong.
I gave examples where they specifically can be.
Opinions are not automatically precluded from being governed by facts.
Quite obviously, this only applies where objective facts are available to do so.
You can hold an opinion contrary to facts, but you would be wrong to do so & your opinion would be indisputably wrong.
Try reading The Accuracy Principle.
Nowhere did I present any logic which supports your claim, that one of them should be wrong.
The only logic I presented, showed that some opinions (those contrary to universal facts) can be disproven, therefore proven incorrect.
I even gave examples which directly prove your claim, that "opinions cannot be wrong", to be blatantly incorrect.
As for your idiotic example, neither of those are opinions.
Perhaps you should seek to elevate your understanding? Particularly before attempting to belittle others.
Hate & love are both emotions, not opinions.
Liking one thing and disliking something else is a personal preference, not an opinion.
You prefer one thing
because of your opinion.
I prefer dogs because, in my opinion, they are more loyal.
That I prefer dogs, is a personal fact. I do.
That dogs are more loyal, or better,
that is an opinion.
Loyalty can be substantiated, or disproven, by general observation of the 2 species. This opinion can be proven, correct or incorrect.
Better cannot. So, better for what reasons? These reasons may be opinions, they may be facts. This opinion cannot be proven, or disproven, unless universal, objective measurements are agreed upon.
An example of what you're trying to show, would be for something which is completely subjective.
In my opinion, chocolate flavour is the best ice cream.
There are no universal facts to be contradicted here. It's subjective.
So does not disprove what I said, at all.
As another example for you, to hopefully allow you to discern the difference:
Joe Bloggs is President of Country A.
In my opinion he is not president. I refuse to recognise him as such. = My opinion is wrong, he is president. My refusal to recognise this, does not alter the fact.
In my opinion he is not fit to be president. = My opinion is subjectively correct, for me.
There's a clear difference. One is blatantly wrong. The other is correct from an individual perspective.
Both are opinions.
An opinion can be formed without using facts or knowledge.
If facts exist which contradict the opinion, then the opinion is objectively wrong.
The only opinions that cannot be determined to be true or false, are those where their validity is not able to be objectively tested.
An opinion of "Mars is too far to travel to." is objectively incorrect.
An opinion of "Mars is too far for me to travel to." is not, necessarily.
The limitations of the subjective nature of this can still be tested and defined, so the opinion can be proven, or disproven.