[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.

[afavour]

> you literally twisted what I said into something else and went on to argue against that.

I had to, your original post contained two factual statements and no opinions, so there was nothing to argue!

Based on your previous replies I think your distinction is that liking the sound of rain is different because it’s a thought conjured up inside your head? “It is good that my garden grows” is also a thought conjoured up in your head that others may disagree with. Your argument seems to require some kind of appeal to objective authority that doesn’t exist.

(I know I said the last post was the end for me but I’ll admit to being somewhat fascinated by the counter argument here)

[evandale]

Are you going to continue this conversation or stop? You continue to muddy the waters and twist things and now I don't even know what the original point is.

You've continuously refused to define opinion for me and continuously refuse to put anything in your own words. You throw paragraphs of strawman at me because I'm being unclear. You throw 3 dictionary links in my face with at least 25 different definitions and can't zero in on a single one.

Back at the top you said:

> An example of "corporate opinion" off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising.

Can you first confirm you said that and you stand by the statement? If you do, explain to me how Facebook saying "we are in favour of advertising" is an opinion.

Now explain to me how "I like rain" is different and not an opinion. You told me "I like rain" is "a factual statement derived from your opinion" and not an opinion and then used that to strawman my argument.

Where I stand "I am in favour of advertising" is the exact same format and is not an opinion from YOUR definition. So how about you explain exactly what you want from me because your contradictions are confusing me.

[afavour]

> Are you going to continue this conversation or stop?

I am going to stop. Your definition of opinion is not one I've ever encountered before but you're welcome to hold it. I can't see any point in continuing to explain the differences.

[evandale]

What's your definition!? Can you please summarize it, I'm dying to know here... or answer this?

> An example of "corporate opinion" off the top of my head: Facebook is in favour of advertising.

How is Facebook saying "we are in favour of advertising" an opinion?

How is "I like rain" is different and not an opinion? You told me "I like rain" is "a factual statement derived from your opinion" and not an opinion and then used that to strawman my argument.

Where I stand "I am in favour of advertising" is the exact same format and is not an opinion from YOUR definition. How are they different?

[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.