What good is an opinion that cannot withstand a little scrutiny?

Just wondering.

If you consider this question offensive, explain it to me.

If you will provide an operational definition of what you mean by "an opinion" and "a little scrutiny" you might get some meaningful responses.

You don't know what those words mean?

At what point have you moved beyond knee-jerk reaction to scrutiny?

>3 barney67: Webster’s definition of “opinion” and “scrutiny” are one thing. Based on what posts of yours I have read, your definitions of terms appear to be whatever you wish them to be which is why I was asking you for your personal definition.

5 -- "your definitions of terms appear to be whatever you wish them to be"
Not true. The opposte of true. Can you give me some examples?

You're making this too difficult. The gentle ladies of the Feminst Theory group have offered something like a worldview, though I chose to use the word "opinions" because that's what they are and because I want to avoid the baggage that goes along with debating worldviews. We all know what an opinion is. We can, I hope, distinguish an opinion from a fact. "Broccoli is nutritious" is a fact. "Broccoli sucks" is an opinion.

None of these people have addressed the points I've made. They've called me all kinds of names and put me on ignore. But I've not seen anyting that approximates a rebuttal. I've seen assertions, claims, beliefs, rather than arguments.

From that I can draw many conclusions, but I'll try to be brief. Maybe they're not trying to make arguments. Maye they don't want to. They're letting off steam, venting, firing off opinions like verbal machine guns. OK, there's a place for that.

I could also say it's because they can't argue. They would rather hold on to a weak opinion than think about it or defend it. That's what I mean by scrutiny, which my New Oxford American dictionary defines as critical observation or examination. "Critical" in this context I assume means analytical rather than insulting or negative, i.e. to observe one's opinion carefully, turning it around in one's mind. To think, in other words. It's very likely that people don't think because they can't think. They don't know how because they've never been taught. Therefore they repeat something they heard or read by a source (person) they consider authoritative. We all do that to some degree. But hand-me-down opinions will only get you so far. If you find someone disagreeing with your opinions, and they are not defensible, you may find yourself getting angry, indignant, frustrated, and ulitmately confused.

If you're going to get angry whenever someone questions your opinion, then why have it? What good is it?

Sure – go over to the Pro and Con thread titled “My issue with conservativism, or “This far and no further” and review the short exchange you and I had concerning the measuring and quantification of differences between charter/home schooling and public schooling (posts 61, 62, 67, 68 and 71). I asked for quantification and your response was “in my state the evidence is obvious and plentiful.” Since nothing else was offered I was left with the understanding that your definition of meaningful quantification of differences amounted to nothing more than your visual impression of the situation in your state. As I noted in the posts, in my line of work, difference quantification is something else entirely.

..."None of these people have addressed the points I've made. They've called me all kinds of names and put me on ignore. But I've not seen anyting that approximates a rebuttal. I've seen assertions, claims, beliefs, rather than arguments.

"From that I can draw many conclusions, but I'll try to be brief. Maybe they're not trying to make arguments. Maye they don't want to. They're letting off steam, venting, firing off opinions like verbal machine guns. OK, there's a place for that.

"I could also say it's because they can't argue. They would rather hold on to a weak opinion than think about it or defend it. That's what I mean by scrutiny, which my New Oxford American dictionary defines as critical observation or examination. "Critical" in this context I assume means analytical rather than insulting or negative, i.e. to observe one's opinion carefully, turning it around in one's mind. To think, in other words."

(emphasis added)

I think that covers the main points rather well.

You have little reason to expect here anything other than what you've described. This group, which I expect I'll leave for good before long, is what I'd call a "hot-house" --as in "green-house"-- group: that is one where "the local flora" requires a carefully controlled environment in order to thrive. What you propose or imagine for it would be the equivalent of throwing all the windows open to the outside air.

How are these fragile plants supposed to survive that?

>8 proximity1:

Or, maybe some of the plants, over their lifetime, have had lots of manure dumped on them, and maybe some of that manure has helped them to "grow", but maybe they've now had their fill of manure, they've had plenty, thank you, and are interested in other things to help them grow and thrive, but on their quest for water and sunlight, they keep getting interrupted by calls from the manure-pushers, who, in their focus on pushing manure, fail to understand that the plants have plenty of manure already, and can go to the manure store if they need or want some more, so they set a special dial tone for the manure-pusher's calls and put them on ignore, because, even though the manure-pusher is a living being with needs too, the plants realize that not only is it not their responsibility to meet those needs (especially when they reek of such manure), it's also a waste of their time.

8 -- Shrinking violets they are not.

"Or, maybe some of the plants, over their lifetime, have had lots of manure dumped on them"

-- No more than on anyone else. And quite a bit less than on many.

>9 omargosh:

I rather resent being engaged in debate by one whose whole approach to it is just as your comment illustrates:

i.e. those who dispute with us are tantamount to manure merchants to whom we owe nothing--neither replies nor, if we do reply, any sustained engagement characterized by reason and honest argument backed by fairly presented facts and something in example; we assume no responsibility for any of that since our pain and our experience render us special, entitled to what we assert: the right to be spared the rigor in criticisms which others take for granted as part of their holding controversial opinions publicly.
-------
>10 barney67:

Exactly.

I rather resent being engaged in debate by one whose whole approach to it is just as your comment illustrates:

And people say that irony is dead...