[evandale]

lol I gotta say I've been trying to read the defenders of this and take them seriously but your incredulity matches mine...

.. and people are replying to you and _still_ defending the government and think they should have unilateral power over their people

I'm kind of speechless about how many people think this ruling is a bad thing.. like who in the hell out there believes the government should have OPINIONS? Can one of you reply to me?

It's as stupid of a concept as a corporation having an opinion.. opinions are reserved for PEOPLE and I have no idea how you could come up with an argument to change my mind on that.

[afavour]

> It's as stupid of a concept as a corporation having an opinion.. opinions are reserved for PEOPLE and I have no idea how you could come up with an argument to change my mind on that.

I guess I don’t understand your point here unless we’re being ultra-literal and saying a corporation can’t have an opinion because it doesn’t have a physical brain developing individual thought.

An example of “corporate opinion” off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising. I guess it's just a shorthand for "the executive board and shareholders of Facebook share the collective view that advertising is good" but I don't think anyone is particularly confused about what is meant when someone says Facebook is favour of something.

[ipaddr]

Facebook is made up of many parts. Some parts find advertising to be directly opposite of their goals. The react team may not like ads being force in their docs for example. If own shares through a pension I may not like advertising.

The CEO decides who manages which roles and divides authority. Opinions comes from these power structures. They could be divided on issues or unified. They speak for the company.

Google is so big you often have conflicting goals from different power structures.

[afavour]

> Google is so big you often have conflicting goals from different power structures.

In that situation I'd say Google is conflicted on the topic. It's still not all that different from a human being, IMO, I can be internally conflicted on a topic and find it difficult to find an opinion that encompasses all of my thoughts.

I get that it's shorthand and euphemism but I don't think it's all that confusing.

[evandale]

> because it doesn’t have a physical brain developing individual thought.

You summed up my point with a single sentence I can agree with, can't argue there!

In your scenario what's the opinion Facebook has about advertising? I'm in favour of more bike lanes in my city but I don't consider that an opinion. Describing _why_ I'm in favour has an element of opinion but voting yes/no is not an opinion to me. Plus, any old why isn't good enough for an opinion. For instance, if Facebook says they're in favour of advertising because it helps them make money then I don't think I can consider that an opinion.

I suppose corporate slogans and mission statements are opinions (We believe the customer is always right) but it's hard for me to call that an opinion because are your values actually opinions? I would say that they can be formed using opinions but I would be reluctant to say they're opinions themselves because of the "strength" of them I guess?

[afavour]

OK, I guess we are being ultra-literal. Which is fine!

> I'm in favour of more bike lanes in my city but I don't consider that an opinion

...I do not understand why not. To my perception that is very much the definition of an opinion.

But anyway, we clearly have a bunch of different definitions in play here. I think we can safely agree to disagree.

[evandale]

It's not an opinion because IMO you need a why for an opinion. There's an implicit why most of the time. But Facebook supporting marketing because they make more money with marketing can be a verified fact - there's no opinion element in it and I don't think Facebook supporting marketing by itself is an opinion.

If you like rain because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factual reason.

If you like rain because it sounds pleasant that's an opinion.

If you like rain because it restores your chi it's (probably) an opinion.

I say governments and corporations can't have opinions for lots of reasons. One of them being they're not people, others that follow from that, like you need thoughts or feelings to have an opinion.

It just doesn't sit right with me having faceless entities publishing opinions because by definition opinions aren't based on facts and we have enough of a problem with regular people spreading misinformation.

[afavour]

Alright, this will be my last contribution here. But:

To start, "I like rain" is a factual statement derived from your opinion, not an opinion itself. So let's change it for "rain is good":

> If you think rain is good because it waters your garden I'd hesitate to call that opinion because you have a factual reason.

> If you think rain is good because it sounds pleasant that's an opinion.

You're making distinctions that don't exist.

Thinking rain is good because it waters your garden is based on the fact that it will help your garden grow.

Thinking rain is good because it sounds pleasant is based on the fact that you enjoy the sound of the rain.

Both of these ignore counter-factuals. Sure, you think rain is good because it waters your garden, I think rain is bad because I live at the bottom of the hill and all that rainwater frequently floods my house. I think rain is bad because I dislike the sound.

Your opinion is based on the fact most relevant to you, my opinion is based on the fact most relevant to me. Choosing which facts are most important is a personal choice that results in an opinion. They're all opinions! To finally bring the thing full circle:

> But Facebook supporting marketing because they make more money with marketing can be a verified fact

It is an opinion supported by fact. A Facebook exec could make the argument that they could make more money by dropping advertising and instead charge a monthly membership fee. There are definitely fewer facts available to back up that opinion but it would still be a valid one.

[evandale]

Definitely agree to disagree at this point.

> You're making distinctions that don't exist.

>Thinking rain is good because it waters your garden is based on the fact that it will help your garden grow.

>Thinking rain is good because it sounds pleasant is based on the fact that you enjoy the sound of the rain.

I'm not sure how you can say the distinctions don't exist. There has to be an analogy but I don't think I can come up with one that will satisfy you. I mean you had to rewrite my example to make your point.. not sure how that's not the world's most obvious strawman, you literally twisted what I said into something else and went on to argue against that.

I think it's easy enough to glean what I mean from my past replies if someone wanted to try to understand me.

[ModernMech]

> I say governments and corporations can't have opinions for lots of reasons. One of them being they're not people

That's just your opinion. Others are of the opinion that corporations are in fact people and deserve all the protections that people deserve regarding free speech. Some such people even sit on the Supreme Court! Materialists would even go so far as to argue countries are conscious.

[emodendroket]

Your conception of what constitutes an “opinion” is different than any other one I’ve ever encountered.

[evandale]

What's your conception of an opinion?

To me am opinion is a belief you have that's not based on facts.

Why do you want your government to have a belief not based on facts? Furthermore, why would you want the government to push this belief on its people?

Lastly why would you care about the opinion (remember: an opinion is a belief that isn't based on facts) of a corporation to the point that you'd defend their right to make statements that aren't factual?

[afavour]

> To me am opinion is a belief you have that's not based on facts.

> Why do you want your government to have a belief not based on facts?

There's some kind of fallacy at work here, you're establishing what your personal definition of something is then arguing with OP while taking your personal belief as fact.

"Opinions are not based on facts" definitely isn't a universally accepted definition of an opinion. An opinion doesn't have to be based on facts but it's not precluded from it.

[evandale]

If there is a fallacy then you need tell me your definition of an opinion or the widely accepted definition.

I can work with you if we have a common understanding but we're not at that point yet.

[emodendroket]

An opinion is a belief which is not itself objectively factual. Factual information can certainly be a basis for them. If we go back the advertising example, we could take two objective facts about advertising:

* online advertising allows consumers to learn about new products and services

* advertising incentivizes user data collection in order that it may be more effective.

From just these two facts one could easily come to a pro- or anti-advertising position based on their values and the relative weights they choose to put on each fact.

[DropInIn]

It's pretty clear that your "reasoning" is based not in any logic but almost exclusively in your "feels"...

You just dislike corps and it's undermining every thought you have on this topic.

[evandale]

Mind telling me how it's clear that I dislike corporations?

I'll proudly admit I have no trust in corporations, but dislike is a little far. There's corporations I like but there's no corporations I trust.

[DropInIn]

Any entity you distrust is also an entity that most reasonably fits into the classification of dislike.

You may like thier products or services but that's not the same as liking the corp itself.

[evandale]

Trust and affection are two different emotions that I'm able to separate.

For example, I like Adidas shoes but when they boast about sustainability I question the truth in that and their intentions.

I prefer Pepsi over Coke but I don't trust either to be truthful in their marketing. I think it's bullshit that Santa prefers Coke, for one he's not even a real person, but I don't dislike Coke for using Santa as a mascot.

I hate Disney though and I firmly believe they're among one of the worst companies on the planet. I oppose anything they do out of principle and believe every decision they make needs to answer yes to the question "Will this make us a billion dollars?" I hope to live to see the day they fold and disappear forever.

So no, I don't dislike every corporation and my inherit distrust doesn't undermine my views one bit. I don't know how one can possibly trust a capitalist company whose motives are primarily profit driven. I don't know how one could think a company stands for anything that wouldn't make them money or would honestly have a goal that wasn't driven by profits.

A good barometer on if a company has morals is if they use rainbow logos in Saudi Arabia during June. Try coming up with a single argument for why a company world proudly display them in North America but not in the Middle East without mentioning profits or market share, and good luck. I personally think it's completely indefensible.

[evandale]

If anyone reads this thread please see this comment: parent is not even trying to argue in good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36621860

[afavour]

Good grief, man.

[evandale]

Can you answer any of my questions? I think they are all pretty straightforward.

[backtoyoujim]

I mean if you can drone strike a citizen as president there is little left to have in the toolbox of "unilateral power over their people".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...

[brightlancer]

> It's as stupid of a concept as a corporation having an opinion.. opinions are reserved for PEOPLE and I have no idea how you could come up with an argument to change my mind on that.

Well, I wouldn't presume to make you think, but _BY DEFINITION_ corporations are legal persons.

Corporation. Incorporate. Corporeal.

This is a legal definition, not biological or sociological or religious or whatever else.

And under that legal framework, the corporation can act as a person and enter into contracts, initiate lawsuits, be sued, be prosecuted, etc. And more basically, the corporation can make public statements which express the _opinion_ of the corporation.

Once folks set aside political bigotries, this shouldn't be a hard concept to understand.

[npunt]

FYI the purpose of an entire branch of government (judiciary) is to have opinions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion

[brightlancer]

Judicial opinions != Personal opinions

It ain't the same ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same freakin' sport.

Equating the two is like equating a sea sponge and a dish sponge. "Well, they're both sponges!"

[nobody9999]

>Equating the two is like equating a sea sponge and a dish sponge. "Well, they're both sponges!"

Actually, they can[0] be. In fact, I use sea sponges as dish sponges every single day.

[0] https://www.naturalbathbody.com/natural-sea-sponges/

[npunt]

Yes indeed, I was just being a bit cheeky given GP's other discussion of the definition of 'opinion' :)

[evandale]

Doesn't seem that cheeky from where I'm standing.

You admitted a judicial opinion is different from a personal opinion and you're making fun of my definition of a personal opinion? But you acknowledge a judicial opinion is different than a person opinion?

Why can't you extend that to a corporation? The "opinion" of a corporation or a judge is NOT the same as a personal opinion and there is a distinction that can/should be made. I'm not sure why you can agree with someone else that a judicial opinion is different than a personal opinion but when I say "not people opinions" are different from "people opinions" I'm wrong?

[evandale]

The judiciary branch is separate from the legislative branch and I was under the impression we were discussing the legislative branch of government.

[mc32]

All that needs to happen for those loyalists to change their mind, is to have the party governing to change to someone they disagree with. Then you will hear how the gov't is killing free speech (that would be a rightful complaint). But we all know what happened to Qwest communications when they declined the gov'ts offer to spy on citizens.