Well actually no not just mine.... that definition is a 100% correct for what is "legal opinion" and it is the criteria by which information is accessed before it can be offered as evidence to a court.
The reason that I promoted it is because of the sloppy public perception of what opinion is in the public arena these days.
As you illustrate in your definition it is apparently sufficient to form "opinion" without knowledge or understanding. That definition is reflective of what has occurred, rather than what needs to be happening.
That is damaging, it is the source of many of our issues and preoccupations. Macca for example and his weed kneed judges. His gut feelings have not been checked, offending levels are lower and prison numbers are higher. He's just wrong but apparently his gut feelings give him licence to express opinion without knowledge or understanding. Thus perpetuating a myth in public opinion.
No harm in general discussion, no harm in talking about what we feel about issues, gut feeling can provide insight and knowledge from experience can be valuable, but it still has to be put into context and checked before it can be legitimate. If is not weighed, its of no value and it can be problematic.
My father used to tell me as a kid to shut up and listen and learn. These days apparently "everybody has a right to an opinion" apparently also means that no knowledge or understanding is required, and everybody must express what they don't know or understand to secure that right... how stupid is that?
Let me paraphrase what this means...... "well thats my opinion anyway" means, I haven't got a clue what I am talking about and I want you all to know that.
So my "narrow opinion" of opinion is merely offered as a counter to stupidity and the public expression of it.... you can all thank me now...
And yes I know that this is an internet forum...
Bookmarks