7 ms·

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 a

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 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    > 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 3y ago
  > 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?
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    Your conception of what constitutes an “opinion” is different than any other one I’ve ever encountered.
    - evandale 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        > 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 3y ago
  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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36621860
  - afavour 3y ago
    Good grief, man.
    - evandale 3y ago
      Can you answer any of my questions? I think they are all pretty straightforward.
mc32 3y ago
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.
backtoyoujim 3y ago
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-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
npunt 3y ago
FYI the purpose of an entire branch of government (judiciary) is to have opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion
- evandale 3y ago
  The judiciary branch is separate from the legislative branch and I was under the impression we were discussing the legislative branch of government.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    >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/ https://www.naturalbathbody.com/natural-sea-sponges/
  - npunt 3y ago
    Yes indeed, I was just being a bit cheeky given GP's other discussion of the definition of 'opinion' :)
    - evandale 3y ago
      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?
brightlancer 3y ago
> 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.

afavour 3y ago

> 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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  > 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 3y ago
> 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?
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Your conception of what constitutes an “opinion” is different than any other one I’ve ever encountered.
  - evandale 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      > 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 3y ago
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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36621860
- afavour 3y ago
  Good grief, man.
  - evandale 3y ago
    Can you answer any of my questions? I think they are all pretty straightforward.

mc32 3y ago

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.

backtoyoujim 3y ago

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

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

npunt 3y ago

FYI the purpose of an entire branch of government (judiciary) is to have opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_opinion

evandale 3y ago
The judiciary branch is separate from the legislative branch and I was under the impression we were discussing the legislative branch of government.
brightlancer 3y ago
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 3y ago
  >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/ https://www.naturalbathbody.com/natural-sea-sponges/
- npunt 3y ago
  Yes indeed, I was just being a bit cheeky given GP's other discussion of the definition of 'opinion' :)
  - evandale 3y ago
    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?

brightlancer 3y ago

> 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.