“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not their own facts.”
A person calling into the Mark Levin show cited Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the originator of the quote. I have no idea what it means since, to me, it has 3 distinct possible interpretations. I won’t reveal what they are just yet. I understand that the real answer is that it means whatever the originator thinks it means. But if someone randomly dropped the quote on you (like I just did), how would you interpret it?
By the way, in case anyone was wondering, I absolutely despise Mark Levin and his following of mental midgets. But he is funny.
I figure it means that you’re allowed to interpret facts however you like, but not to alter/manipulate/selectively ignore/invent facts to suit your notions.
I second Antigen: You and everybody else is entitled to an opinion, but the opinion can’t/shouldn’t be based on/argued with falsified facts - facts that you tailored to your need.
I don’t see other possible interpretations - I’m waiting for your explanation.
Ok. Here are the possibilities that I came up with:
While people are entitled to their own opinions, they shouldn’t present or disguise them as facts. For example: “I think that Karr killed JonBenet.” versus “Karr killed JonBenet.”
Facts are facts and are free for all to use, like the air we breathe. Your use of a fact to support your argument shouldn’t prevent me from using the same fact to support an opposing argument, or to use that same fact to support an unrelated argument that you don’t support.
What the previous posters said. Basically, you shouldn’t make up or manipulate facts.
It means you have to be objective about the facts & describe the totality of the circumstances without letting your opinions intrude but that you can run while as to your subjective opinions of said facts.
It’s somewhat of a copout, though, because back when I still did litigation work I wrote an objective facts section but I’d high-light (without wandering into the realm of making claims, assumptions or drawing conclusions) good ones, or write in a way that would easily set up the legal conclusions I’d draw later on. Every writing instructor I had at school said the same thing “be objective, describe all the relevant facts but highlight ones that are helpful to your case.”
Not that I have to think about these things since I became a comma guardian.
Jamie Whyte argues in Crimes Against Logic that the right to an opinion is an irrelevant right, and as such to assert said right is a logical fallacy.
“Here is a simple way of putting it. If the opinions to which we are entitled might nevertheless be false, the entitlement cannot properly be invoked to settle a dispute. It adds no information to the original matter; it does nothing to show that the opinion in question is true.”
Basically, you have a right to your opinion. So what? Your opinion is only germane to the question if it is true. Said right is only coincidentally associated with facts.
