Naturally everybody has opinions and cannot be denied to express them if they so desire. But it should be informed by research. Donald Trump will tell us that in his opinion there is no such thing as climate change and a few hundred million Americans will believe him. And yes, everybody is free to believe what they want, but if a belief that God will reward you if you kill 50 people with a suicide bomb, should we sit idly by and just say "well that's their right and good for them to have the courage of their convictions?"
I am stating (for example) that you cannot slander a persons character, make up lies about them, then hide behind the safety net of "that is my opinion of that person" and again point to the internet as giving a platform where one sole voice can reach millions. Ill thought out opinions can be the literary equivalent of road rage.

 

People are free to have their opinion whether we like it or not. An opinion doesn't even have to be voiced/written. If someone thinks a million dollars will fall from the sky if they slap you.. they can say they believe it all day long. The wrong is only in the slap should it come. Some people kill people they don't like. It happens every day. And over more shallow shit than religious beliefs.. it can/is and has been done based on the color of another.

If religion wasn't an opinion based on ethnic groups creating a story and gearing it to favor whatever color they are.. there would only be 1, or none. A killer's justification can be "I didn't like that muthafucka". A deadly act rids no one else of the right to that same opinion. I can talk about Donald Trump and say "I don't like that muthafucka". The notion doesn't justify a nation of programmed robots to say "You remember what happened the last time somebody said they didn't like a muthafucka.. Lock him up!".

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2018

Allow me to quote Philosophy Professor Stokes of Adelaide University:

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.
Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

 

This raises the question who should determine which beliefs should be abandoned.
According to

you should be able to do so.

Furthermore I would extend

to I can think and feel whatever I like.
But of course there is neither a general permission to express this, nor to act accordingly.

 

what's up with Brexit anyway... doubt it'll happen...

:D
I had to...

 

You should. I should. We all should. For example, until recently I was of the opinion that roofing on houses should be white. I live in a city where temperatures can reach almost 50 degrees Celsius. It made sense to me that a light colour would deflect heat. Yet most modern roofing consists of dark charcoal tiles. A cursory study of heat transfer and thermodynamics informed me that dark tiles absorb and dissipate heat better than white. Then I remembered that the Space Shuttle had black ceramics covering crucial areas when re-entering the atmosphere. My opinion that they should be white was incorrect.
Which would be fine 50 years ago if I shared my opinion with my neighbour. But now with YouTube audiences of millions and opinions regarding everything from the Loch Ness Monster to Vaccines causing autism, the right to express an opinion carries much weight and needs to subjected to sceptical scrutiny.

 

I hope you are right about it not happening. If it does and britain has a crap deal or none I might be forced to leave the house that I own here in France where I live. My wife and I live on less than one minimum wage between us (old age pension) and budget well enough to never want for anything. Thank goodness for sister getting my studio just how i like it....need nothing else now.
If we are forced back to England (or the uk as it's called now) we will inevitably become burdons on the state as our house here, when sold ....if we are given the chance, (cost 40,000 euros) would only get a low quality cardboard box over there.
These are not opinions about our precarious position, but conclusions based on facts.

I do however have an opinion about the reasons why the referendum went the way it did, and that is that not enough people did the research and I include the government here, to see what the outcome might mean for people in real terms; not just people in our predicament but everyone......well the poor anyway.
I hope that was not too off topic or offensive to anyone, if so I apologise.

Happy new year

 

Ah, maybe this got lost in my translation, but we/I need to distinguish between abandoning one's own beliefs and try to force someone else to abandon his beliefs, for instance by abusing the right to speak.

To abandon our own beliefes we have to be open minded and I'm afraid there are and will always be too many people who are not. But as long as those not open minded people do others no harm and tolerate them, it's not a problem at all, no matter what they believe.

The belief itself - and I mean any belief - isn't the problem. It's all about how we act and react on it.

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2018