Reading notes:
The idea that you don't have the right to your opinion is really weird. Most people would probably disagree, and if I tried to explain it to my mom she'd look at me like I was crazy and say "That doesn't make any sense" because it's kind of a crazy thought. I don't think it makes much sense, either. I get what the author of the passage was trying to say, but the example about a car and someone walking into the street was really bad and another example should have been used. No one in that situation is going to be mad about being pulled back from getting hit by a car and say, "Well, I have a right to my opinion." That will never ever ever ever ever ever happen. A more realistic example should have been used. The one about the Bush and Iraq or whatever it was about was good, I guess, but honestly I think the author was totally wasting his time writing a stupid piece about something that most people won't understand or will disagree with anyway. Furthermore, why having an obligation to let someone have their opinion is a bad thing, is beyond me. It's an opinion. It can't be wrong, and it can't really be right, either. Getting hit by a car, for example, is rarely a matter of opinion. Am I missing something? I feel like there's something to get, but the fact that I don't understand it should tell you that it's really a crappy idea anyway. It shouldn't be so hard to understand if it's in any way plausible.
Seminar notes:
We didn't seem to cover any ground in our seminar, we pretty much just talked about religion and racism. But if someone is religious and that's their opinion that they have a right to, then that means, by definition of that stupid article, that we have an obligation to let them have it. The Constitution of the U.S. would agree, since we have freedom of religion. So.. what's the point he was trying to make, again?
No comments:
Post a Comment