Talk:I'm entitled to my opinion/Archives/2012

Better example than Bush?

Perhaps a better example could be found? The current argument equates Bush with the government, which is not exactly ideal. Most of the arguments along the line of the initial premise here (that Bush invaded Iraq for its oil) that I have seen go to the idea that he and his associates have something to gain from it, e.g. via their involvement in companies that get huge contracts in Iraq, not that the US gov't or the US people had anything to gain along those lines. Not that I'm arguing the topic of the example myself, just that the arguments of the second person do not adress the premise of the first person in the example. Zuiram 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would make more sense to have the U.S. government in the conclusion rather than 'George Bush' as 'George Bush' is not stated anywhere in the premises. Grumpyyoungman01 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, no more rabbits being pulled out of hats. Grumpyyoungman01 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It also seems to lean on a pro-government, "Bush or whatever is being honest" thing even though this is disputed. 70.101.147.74 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So what? Grumpyyoungman01 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So what? Wikipredia is not your political soapbox. Anyway...I agree; the image needs to be deleted and replaced with something that actaully outlines the logical fallacy itself instead of turning this page into a pro-Bush rally.

I agree that the image serves no purpose and gives a partisan slant to the page. That's not because I disagree with it – I agree that talking about stealing oil doesn't make sense – but because it doesn't have a place in this article. Makgraf 20:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"I agree that the image serves no purpose" - explain. "gives a partisan slant to the page" - explain. "talking about stealing oil doesn't make sense" - this too needs an explanation. "it doesn't have a place in this article", this sounds like circular reasoning. You have given some randomly ordered opinions, but no reasons for why anybody should pay attention to them. Grumpyyoungman01 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well those are my opinions and I have a right to them!  :) Seriously though, I'll respond in no particular order. I agree with the arguer that the US did not invade Iraq to steal its oil, indeed I think that the entire concept of "stealing oil" doesn't make much sense. It gives a partisan slant to the page because it takes an explination of a fallacy and presents a highly slanted slice of a debate on a polarizing issue. What do the points of the 3 other responses to the Iraq question have to do with the fallacy? I don't think it serves a purpose because it seems like a simple enough concept that can be explained it text. If there has to be an image it should be a simple flow type thing along the lines of "X" -> "Here's why X is wrong" -> "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion". For those two reasons I thought it didn't have a place in the article. Makgraf 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"It gives a partisan slant to the page because it takes an explination of a fallacy and presents a highly slanted slice of a debate on a polarizing issue." - The only way the visual example could give a partisan slant to the page is if it supported George Bush, the Republican party or the War in Iraq, or vice versa. It does none of those things, it is in no way pro-Bush, pro-Republican or pro-Iraq war. The debate in question is about "Why the U.S. invaded Iraq", the example is a slice of this debate and the overall debate is polarizing, but this slice of the debate is not polarizing.

"I don't think it serves a purpose because it seems like a simple enough concept that can be explained it text." - Granted that it isn't necessary to explain the concept, but it isn't superfluous either. It adds more information and presents it in a different format. Also for general information the example (but not the image) comes from the "Crimes against logic" book, I didn't pick it for, or as a partisan example. Grumpyyoungman01 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is polarizing because it is not somethingthat cannot be proven or disproven without further evidence AND is very controversial. One could set two people into a room, regardless of party affiliation, who disagree on the issue, and they could argue for hours without coming to any conclusion. Regardless of intention, it ought to be removed to prevent a political debate on a non-political topic. One of the other problems I have with it is that it assumes (unintentionally, I believe) that there is no evidence that could contradict that given, basically telling people that it's proper and right to believe that the U.S. government is not in Iraq for the oil -- and Wikipedia is not here to spread political messages or POV stuff. However, I am in favor of keeping it there UNTIL a better image demonstrating the concept is created. --queso man 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The example needs to be replaced with something less contentious. Reasonable people obviously disagree about the proposition being debated in the example; it should be replaced with an argument about, say, the Earth being flat. Nothing that has supporters on both sides (these days). --Mrnorwood 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But is Wikipedia entitled to your opinion

If informal logic is even a legitimate matter for study, why would anyone denigrate an "i'm entitled to my opinion" assertion? It's a reasonable (and not innacurate) convention for conceding that the participants were unable to cooperatively resolve the argument to mutual satisfaction. Isn't it normally used when two (or more) people are unable to reach concensus on the validity of a statement or conclusion?

I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings, but this seems like a bogus article (and I'm entitled to my opinion). At the very least, it's pretentious ("...has a legal or natural right or entitlement to their opinion...").

The example doesn't seem to support the claims in the first paragraph. Does it really demonstrate any form of logical fallacy or circular logic? The rebuttals simply state why it would be unwise for the US to invade iraq for the purposes of acquiring oil. I doubt the first participant would presuppose great wisdom or rigour behind the invasion. Also, why were there no arguments to counter the rebuttals? It sort of paints a picture of one participant making an assertion, and the second rattling off a sequence of rebuttals without letting the first person get another word in edge-wise. In that example, I think the first participant used "i'm entitled to my opinion" not because he/she was losing the argument but to end the conversation and find someone more adept at human interaction.

I think it's very contentious to state that this represents any formal logical fallacy (this is, after all, informal logic, isn't it?). Nor does this seem to be an example of circular reasoning. I'd assert that this is not a widely-held view, but merely someone's opinion.-- Mike -- 20:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrnorwood, how is the example contentious? You say that reasonable people obviously disagree about the proposition. But they don't, which is why this example is in the article and was used as the example in the source referenced. Reasonable people also don't dispute the propostion that the Earth is spherical. A reasonable person is one who would offer arguments to support their case, there are no arguments in favour of the propositon "The United States invaded Iraq to steal its oil". Therefore, by definition, no reasonable person would dispute it. If I am mistaken and there are reasonable people, with reasons, then that is when the image would be an inappropriate example. Not because it is contentious though, but because it would be an example of the straw man fallacy.

Mike, I will only deal with the comments of yours that are relevant to whether the example should be included in the article. "Also, why were there no arguments to counter the rebuttals?" Because no such arguments exist, the proposition is not contentious, hence it has been chosen for an example.

"It sort of paints a picture of one participant making an assertion, and the second rattling off a sequence of rebuttals without letting the first person get another word in edge-wise." - It is unfortunate that is come across like this, but I am restricted to the argument mapping software I have. However I believe the description which accompanies the article clears any confusion.

In regards to your comments about logic and fallacies, you have misunderstood the difference between an informal fallacy and a formal fallacy and their relationships to formal logic and informal logic. "I'm entitled to my opinion" is a formal fallacy because the pattern of reasoning is not valid.Grumpyyoungman01 02:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please change that image as it violates NPOV

Grumpyyoungman01, can you please change that image? I'll give you some time. If you don't, I will nominate it for deletion as it asserts a highly contentious point of view. --Bhuston 12:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bhuston, you say that the image is highly contentious, but like the other editors who have claimed so on the talk page you have not given any reasons in support of the proposition "The US invaded Iraq to steal its oil" and if there are no reasons in favour of that, only objections against, then by definition it is not a contentious proposition. Something can only be contentitous - and you say this is highly contentious - if there reasons on both sides of a debate.

Now I am not aware of any reasons from the other side of the debate, but if you, or anybody else would give me one reason in favour of the contention "The US invaded Iraq to steal its oil", then the image would clearly violate NPOV. Consider an analogy to the flat Earth theory, the proposition "The Earth is flat" is not contentious because nobody can provide reasons to support it.

Quoting from the NPOV page: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." - No conflicting views have been identified.

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."" - This is more of a grey area, but the very nature of argumentation in informal logic means that pages dealing with fallacies and other argument patterns necessarily break the letter of this guildline, if not the spirit.

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion." - This is more explicit and seems to suggest that NPOV has been violated, but again the category is informal logic. If that argument map were to be placed on any other page, such as Reasons for the Iraq War, then it would definately violate NPOV.

I am not wikilawyering to claim that I haven't violated NPOV, but I am claiming that I haven't not violated NPOV. In other words it is extremely ambiguous whether it has been violated in this instance. Grumpyyoungman01 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Grumpyyoungman01): Hi Grumpyyoungman01, as I stated, I would be happy to debate the matter, but I feel it is unnecessary, and this is not the proper place for this debate. The point is, you are using a diagram in an innocuous article on logic to promote a particular world view. And despte your defensive dancing, I think you know exactly what you are doing. You are a logician, as am I. Some of my best friends are logicians, thus I know from experience arguments with logicians can be lengthy and frustrating, as logicians can always "prove" they are correct. I really don't want to go there. So, please consider this carefully: If you will not consider modifying the image, I will nominate it for deletion as an NPOV violation. This is NOT the place for a debate on the Iraq war. Thanks for your consideration. --Bhuston 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Random Outside Recognition

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?page=14850&t=7279722#1037870435 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.223.233 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 December 2006

This does not look like a notable source to me :) --Bill Huston ^(talk) 17:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kmarinas86

Thank you for you efforts to improve the article, but they don't appear to pertain to the article's subject, the so-called "I'm entitled to my opinion" fallacy. Please show the how the content you added relates to the topic; otherwise, you may want to find a more appropriate article, or create a new one. Pop Secret 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lending my assistance from WikiProject Philosophy

Responding to GRBerry's request for assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, I have come to investigate the article. I rewrote it so that it would only assert true things, but I think deletion might be appropriate if anyone chooses to do it. KSchutte 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Total deletion after taking the article to oblivion over a silly argument. ED has many rights to make fun of you. Red13utterfly

Edit

I erased "It can sometimes be an instance of the formal fallacy of equivocation when any of the various concepts of 'a right' - legal rights, natural rights or entitlement are confused." It's beside the point whether someone is arguing about which branch of their legal entitlement to an opinion is. Whether the person's opinion must be addressed by law or not is always attributed to their professional level of authority, which can not be argued and their point must always be valid if they are allowed to be part of the argument. Everyones opinion is valid by law so this definition is extra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) 92.233.71.47 (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)