2006-09-04 22:34:45 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Very dangerous.
2006-09-04 22:36:02 · answer #1 · answered by rj_pebs 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The danger is to those who believe they have power, and might lose it. Everything in politics is based on opinion and assumption, there are no truths or facts.
Apparently, knowledge is power. Knowledge is a function of trust and belief. Trust and belief are formulated from opinion and assumption.
The danger in my opinion, is the vacuum which existed before such a forum came into being. That bred apathy and anarchy due to the silent majority. At least where there is such a forum, people can be heard and can hear what other people are saying. Even if their particular religion, politics, or rant is outvoted.
It is far more productive to society as a whole to allow freedom of speech, than to restrict it. If you restrict it you create terrorism. If you allow it you lose power. If you are in power you will lose it unless you completely destroy your enemy. As you cannot completely destroy your enemy, you have to accept eventual defeat.
Therefore treat your enemy well, as you will have to suffer their revenge in opposition.
2006-09-04 22:50:56 · answer #2 · answered by James 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Love this question!
Sadly, the entire world is a place where opinion and assumption are outvoting truth and fact.
Just look at the debates over global warming, immigration, creationism, and stem cell research. Facts are swept under the rug only to be replaced by opinions and misinformation. Our very existence is at stake, yet uninformed mob-rule continues to be the preferred standard.
2006-09-04 22:45:40 · answer #3 · answered by Zariza Burgundie Rose 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe the 1st poster that reported the dogs in CA did no longer do something risky until now. no person has the telepathic ability to comprehend what a dogs will do or ought to do. The state is generalizing particular breeds because of the fact they have the better predisposition to do something risky. With that being mentioned, small dogs breeds are no longer blanketed in this? That pisses me off because of the fact ppl are much less in all probability to checklist a smaller dogs biting or attempting to maul somebody. that does no longer mean their temperament shouldnt be evaluated and categorized as probably risky ( i assume the smaller breeds are excluded because of the fact on the top of the day their injury is minimum ). and that i believe u wen it comes right down to obeying the ordinance, purely in charge and regulation abiding proprietors will comply and go through while their dogs are greater desirable than in all probability no longer the undertaking. And the area with the dogs that looks equivalent to the breed yet no longer blended with one should additionally be placed on the DDO class...it incredibly is bull because of the fact uneducated ppl will call a lab a pit bull ( and the owner of that lab has to conform with the ordinance because of the fact it resembles the pit bull......? i'm thinking that as quickly as back this all falls into the controversy of wonderful proprietors vs. undesirable proprietors. Few consistently go through for the movements of maximum folk. The state isn't taking a guess the two way.
2016-09-30 08:49:19 · answer #4 · answered by kuhlmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The opinions of GWB and the American peoples Assumption that HE WOULDN"T DO THAT WOULD HE? is very dangerous indeed. Lets look at the Facts and learn the Truth.
2006-09-04 22:47:44 · answer #5 · answered by researcher 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it can be very dangerous if the opinions and assumptions usurp the place truth and fact. In the case of perpetuating myths over truth you only have to look here to see that happening
2006-09-04 22:41:57 · answer #6 · answered by break 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very dangerous but this is often the way things go because those who know the facts are too timid to fight against those who have the power to control but don't care about what is right. When media get too powerful, this is what happens because they can be very selective in what is reported.
2006-09-04 22:46:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
About as dangerous as life in general, even in the law courts magistrates and judges rely heavily on opinion and assumption, usually their own and often other people like so called expert witnesses.
2006-09-04 22:46:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It can be dangerous if you unquestioningly accept what people vote for -- dangerous to your ability to use your own discernment and intelligence, that is. The fact that you have posed the question shows that you are aware of this, so you don't need to worry in your case.
Of course, that's only my opinion... :)
2006-09-04 22:43:35 · answer #9 · answered by Lenky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
isn't that how history has always unfolded... aren't all religions based on opinion and assumption and very little truth or any tangible facts?
2006-09-04 22:54:09 · answer #10 · answered by muppet 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Welcome to the internet. How dangerous it could be depends on the level of seriousness given to those opinions and assumptions.
2006-09-04 22:45:37 · answer #11 · answered by DelusionRoad 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋