Feb. 20th, 2013

tearonthefire: (Taarna)
At this point there are probably many who would like to argue with me or even get violent over what I have just stated. Before I get started let me make an example almost everyone can relate to. Some that know me might think that I'm about to go for the religion card. I'm not, even the religious can relate to this. Oh how you self defenders, you opinionators who like using the 'it's my opinion' card are going to love this. I'm giddy with anticipation.

First bear in mind that all of this is on record and the statements were made during public interviews, this isn't an interview faux pa, it's the company's justification.

Advertising firms for fast food chains, chip and drink companies, and toy manufacturers employ child psychologists to determine the best way to advertise to child so that they can better nag their parents into buying them something. They called this, the nag factor. Their spokesmen have said on camera, more than once, 'when the parents say that they don't like it when their children nag, well that is just a general attitude that they posses' and that through advertisements, 'you can manipulate consumers (children or their parents by proxy) into wanting and therefore buying your products', and that 'it's a game'. When asked numerous times if they though it was unethical to advertise to children in this way, their reply is that it was a matter of opinion.

It's a good thing too, that it's just someone's opinion because if it was factually unethical then you wouldn't hear 'can we go to McDonald's', 'I want to go to McDonald's', and my favourite SCREAM 'I WANT MCDONDAL'S I HATE LASAGNA!!!!!!'. If you think I'm speaking condescendingly, that just your opinion. Speaking of McDonald's hears another 'opinion'.

When McDonald's really began opening stores in France the surgeon general of France said that McDonald's is only part of a healthy diet if eaten once a month. McDonald's replayed by saying that 'it was one man's opinion'. When the surgeon general of the united states said that 'obesity is an epidemic', and indicted fast food restatements as part of the cause, the restatements said it was just an opinion.

I could go on but I bet that your kids nagging you for something and that your thinking that it was wrong for large corporations, who employ many ivy league school graduates, to teach them how to nag you better, was just an opinion has made my case. Well if everyone is entitled to their opinion, you have to respect that opinion with grace and civility and without debate, then you should load up the car cause you're going to your pediatrician.

You are of course entitled to hold any opinion of anything in all the universe. The point were the phrase, 'you are not entitled to your opinion' comes into play is when you start telling others your opinion. Being ' entitled' to an 'opinion' does not make you suddenly immune to criticism of that opinion. Let's take another example 'most' people would agree isn't an opinion someone should hold. 'I think black people are less evolved and inferior to white people and should be allowed to die out and if one was about to be hit by a bus I would do nothing to stop it from happening'. Disgusting eh?

Well I had an argument with a self sanctified opinionator who constantly stated how they were entitled to their 'opinion' but when posed the racist 'opinion', very quickly vilified it. They said 'it was completely different' and that that 'opinion' was 'racist' and shouldn't be allowed to proliferate. Unfortunately you don't get it both ways. Who decides what 'opinions' one is entitled to and that are protected from debate or ridicule. The asshole racist's 'opinion' is just as valid as yours. Yup, uhum, I'm sorry cupcake, he is. Again, if you think I'm speaking condescendingly, that just your opinion.

You see how annoying that is, me being a bitch then telling you that it's just your opinion. You see how humiliating it is when you are compared to a racist. Unfortunately that's the reality of opinions, I am being a bitch and using your shield of opinions against you while at the same time comparing you to a racist. That's what most people have to live with on a daily basis, hearing people's mind numbing opinions than being told that they are not allowed to show that person evidence that the opinion is incorrect or just plain ignorant. Go ahead, I challenge you to prove that the racist's opinions are any less valid than whatever your opinion is, without inherently invalidating your own entitlement to yours.

Here let me do it for you so that you don't have to strain yourself and remember 'if you think I'm speaking condescendingly, that just your opinion'. Damn that feels good, I should do that in real life but then I would have to disengage all sense of self respect.

Being a racist is an old and antiquated idea that we know now to be untrue. Whatever opinion you hold is an old and antiquated idea that we know now to be untrue. Being a racist devalues human beings which we know is wrong. Whatever opinion you hold devalues human knowledge which we know is wrong. Being a racist directly affects another human being. Whatever opinion you hold directly affects another human beings' intelligence. Again I could go on.

I hope I'm making my point clear, while I like this level of sarcastic discussion I don't think everyone deserves such tactics. Buy in large you will notice most intelligent people welcome discussion of their evidence based opinions and most would delight in finding a new thing to contemplate even if it directly contradicts they previously held opinions. The only people who seem bent on defending their indefensible opinions are the ones who think they will somehow be lessened or loose something if that opinion is found to be untrue.

To me that would be a terrible concept to deal with. I couldn't imagine any situation were some opinion I held was more important or possessed more value than the truth. It would be a terrifying state of limbo where everything became not real and nothing held any substance. I imagine it would feel a lot like being a religious believer.

Up until now I tried to avoid using the word believe, that's because belief holds even less defensible value then an opinion. At least with an opinion it usually comes from hearing something from someone who claims to have heard it from an expert or has heard of a study about it. Believers have a specific mandate, a creed that is built into their beliefs that basically says that the more unbelievable god(or whatever) is the more you must believe because faith without proof is the most noble, or some other completely self fulfilling statement like that. I think the quote has so little value and is so idiotic my mind refuses to remember it. I don't even think I should have to come up with an argument against these self described proofless opinionators. They go out of their way to disqualify themselves, what more do you want. They actually say that no matter how much evidence you bring them, it's their duty to continue to believe in the face of insurmountable evidence.

I don't need to come up with an argument, they're sheep and admit to such by calling their 'god' a shepard. The only problem with them, and a topic for another rant, is their pension for trying to make everyone else believe their rhetoric. The other opinionators will at least eventually stop talking and usually wont try to tell your kids they're going to hell.


tearonthefire: (Default)

February 2014

16 171819202122

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 09:50 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios