If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Seeing as it can't be proved one way or the other, its a bit of a moot point.
Only if you believe in such an absurdity as a paternalistic God.
Aladdin seems to think otherwise.
It's an illustration of the problems of life. No matter how you hold property- landlords, owner-occupiers, socialist co-operatives- people will only allow people with their views to use their land.
I don't agree with landlords generally, but in this instance the same problems would be there regardless.
Indeed it is. Until all land and property is common then situations like this would occur.
Never gonna happen though.
:thumb:
On what basis do you claim that?
Not really. You believe those opinions to be wrong but your view is not an absolute.
Well they're not are they? My GP's opinion on medical matters holds more weight than mine, for example.
Yes, that's what I said.
In the example of a socialist co-operative, at least it would be the local community making decisions, not an absentee landlord.
No, not all opinions are equally valid, as I have already shown.
No all you've shown is that GP's opinions are likely to be better informed, nothing to do with validity. He is more likely to be right, but there's no guarantee of it...
The upshot was they didn't examine and when the pot was taken off i couldn't walk. Another Doctor friend of the family giving an informed opinion that children who have broken bones often suffer from a temporary lack of confidence about walking and a bit of exercise would cure that. It was only after I was unable to walk without squealing in pain and my ankle had ballooned to the size of a train that he then gave a revised informed opinion that my leg was still broken.
.. and it debunks your point. The Doctor's opinion wasn't more valid and was, in fact, incorrect - this happens regularly on matters where people take your stance and presume that a more informed view is therefore more valid.
It's not difficult to work out. If a doctor says my growth is benign, and I say its cancer, he's more likely to be right but his opinion is no more valid (especially if his opinion turns out to be wrong).
... exactly, put forward as an "expert" and look what happened...
val·id /ˈvælɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[val-id] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/valid
A doctor's opinion is more likely to be correct (valid) than mine, but that doesn't mean his opinion is by default more valid. It means he has more information at his disposal to make his decision. Always assuming that a more informed opinion is more valid allows people like Roy Meadow to get away with what he did to those women.
:thumb:
Glad we got that one settled.
Do you think that thought IS valid ?
Or does it just seem that way to me ?