7% Increase In Population. Are We Full?

[MrSmith]

If you express an opinion without actually knowing the facts then that allows me to form an opinion about you.

 

 

 

Opinion.

A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

To express an opinion that too many people die on our roads would be silly if no one dies on our roads, but if you know that some people do die on our roads you can express an opinion that its too many, despite not knowing how many die.

 

It’s likely that you have already formed an opinion on me, but you may be too polite to express it, or fear braking forum rules.

Edited July 24, 2012 by MrSmith

[Cyclone]

You could express that opinion.

 

But if you honestly believe that if >0 people die then it's 'too many' then I'd have the same opinion about you as if you had just formed the opinion without actually caring what the facts were.

 

Opinion.

A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

And when it isn't based on fact or knowledge we're all entitled to draw our own opinions from that (although they will be based on the knowledge that you form opinions not based on it.)

 

Sometime in this context, you, is just shorthand for 'a person who behaved like that', which is rather long for typing multiple times.

[JackLakeland]

Get a room for god's sake, its obvious there's some sort of attraction...

[buck]

If you express an opinion without actually knowing the facts then that allows me to form an opinion about you.

Forming opinions about people you don't know based on written comments is foolish and insulting, unless the grammar is profane or poor. Because you're not agreed with doesn't mean you're perfect. It means someone has an equal and opposite viewpoint to you. It's democracy at work. In this case we know the facts. There are immigrants in Britain. That's a fact, indisputable. How do you deal with them. That's the subject for discussion. Case closed. Edited July 24, 2012 by buck

[MrSmith]

You could express that opinion.

 

But if you honestly believe that if >0 people die then it's 'too many' then I'd have the same opinion about you as if you had just formed the opinion without actually caring what the facts were.

 

 

And when it isn't based on fact or knowledge we're all entitled to draw our own opinions from that (although they will be based on the knowledge that you form opinions not based on it.)

 

Sometime in this context, you, is just shorthand for 'a person who behaved like that', which is rather long for typing multiple times.

 

 

To express an opinion that too many people die on our roads would be silly if no one dies on our roads,

 

I already said it would be silly.

[Cyclone]

I don't think you understood >0. That means greater than zero, not the same as "no one".

[Cyclone]

Forming opinions about people you don't know based on written comments is foolish and insulting

Don't be silly.

Firstly the idea that knowing someone is an absolute state. We all know each other a little bit on here from what and how we post.

And it's perfectly reasonable to form opinions about people given the limited knowledge we have.

unless the grammar is profane or poor. Because you're not agreed with doesn't mean you're perfect. It means someone has an equal and opposite viewpoint to you.

It's not about whether people agree or not, it's about much more than that, how they respond to things, whether they are prepared to change their mind, whether they can follow logic, what level of education they appear to demonstrate and probably most importantly what opinions they actually hold.

It's democracy at work.

What is? I'm not sure what democracy has to do with forming opinions about people.

In this case we know the facts. There are immigrants in Britain. That's a fact, indisputable. How do you deal with them. That's the subject for discussion. Case closed.

I'm not sure what case you think is closed? Nobody was arguing that there aren't immigrants in Britain, that would be a foolish opinion to express.

[MrSmith]

I don't think you understood >0. That means greater than zero, not the same as "no one".

 

Does that mean you think some deaths on our roads are acceptable?

[Cyclone]

Does that mean you think some deaths on our roads are acceptable?

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'acceptable'.

 

I think that they're almost inevitable and that to chase a target of zero deaths at any cost would not be worthwhile. Which is some form of acceptable.

Obviously the loss of any life is regrettable and horrible for those involved, but the benefits that road transport provides to society outweigh the cost of the deaths it also causes.

If the benefits didn't outweigh the costs then we could immediately shut down the entire road network, or enforce a 10mph limit (or lower if needed).

[MrSmith]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'acceptable'.

 

I think that they're almost inevitable and that to chase a target of zero deaths at any cost would not be worthwhile. Which is some form of acceptable.

Obviously the loss of any life is regrettable and horrible for those involved, but the benefits that road transport provides to society outweigh the cost of the deaths it also causes.

If the benefits didn't outweigh the costs then we could immediately shut down the entire road network, or enforce a 10mph limit (or lower if needed).

 

 

So would it be OK to have the opinion that too many people die on our roads but it’s an unavoidable and regrettable consequence of driving and is a price worth paying because of the benefits that road transport provides to society.

 

 

You appear to be implying the roads cause people to die, when in fact it’s bad driving.

Edited July 28, 2012 by MrSmith