Seems strange to post a cite that proves you are incorrect when you say all opinions are based on no accurate information. Since the definition you chose says “not necessarily” and not “not”
“A” for effort though! 
How about this: If you express an opinion, and don’t want to justify it, I should be able to mock it freely without repercussion or hard feelings from you?
It’s the price of admission if someone wants to inflict their content-less blatherings upon me.
If you have an opinion that’s based on nothing, that has no justification supporting it, shut the fuck up and listen to the opinions of people who have actually put a little effort into thinking about the topic. Your opinion (such as it is in this hypothetical) is worthless garbage. Frankly, it’s worse than worthless, because emitting it lessens everyone around you, by taking up their time better served by doing literally anything besides listening to you.
If you don’t feel like supplying your justification, then don’t. Nobody can make you, and neither can you make them stop mocking you, if that’s what they want to do in response.
They should be ready to, at least - either with facts, or logic, or something more than “I feel that…”.
Otherwise, we go back to one of my “things” … Not all opinions are worthy of consideration or respect. Some are just stupid and shitty.
That definition is correct. Unfortunately, it contradicts your claim. If something is “not necessarily based on facts”, then it inherently means it can be based on facts. Your claim, which Ravenman called stupid, is that opinions can never be based on facts. That is what you said, that no one’s opinions are worth anything because opinions are not based on facts.
There are two types of opinions: those arrived by reasoning, and those that are just taste. But, in intelligent conversation, even the latter tend to have facts backing them up–they’re just reasons you had to figure out.
Normally I wouldn’t get too involved in an argument over definitions. But your response here is odd. You clearly didn’t say exactly what you meant–you meant “opinions not backed up by facts are worthless.” And that’s fine. So why double down, quoting a definition that doesn’t agree with your claim? Why not admit you left something out? Hell, it would make more sense to me if you accused people of knowing what you meant and deliberately choosing to misunderstand.
Well, that and I think the distinction between fact and opinion is important enough that we need to be on the same page in what those words mean. For example, an informed opinion is based on facts, but it still is an opinion, and thus might be wrong, even if the underlying facts are correct. But I honestly think you know that.
You’re not stupid. Just the post was.
I agree almost entirely with the above. An opinion CAN be simply a matter of taste (I think raw tomatoes are gross) or it can be carefully researched (I think Stalin’s views on national security of the USSR are intertwined with his likely personality disorders).
The one reservation I have about the above post is that while it is certain that the “opinions can never be based on facts” post is thoroughly stupid, as stated, I would not go so far as to state that k9b is not stupid. Gonna havta reserve judgment on that.