Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Your attempt to create equivalence between your opinion and that of the report's authors is faulty. There is no automatic equivalence between opinions. Everyone has a right to be heard, but they do not have the right to be equally correct. The views in the report linked by Hugh are backed by rigorous research and use of evidence. The contrary view, which you seem to hold, is backed by ... What?
|
I did not say there was equivalence. I said there was difference and holding a different view is a democratic right.
A layman does not have the resources or Government funding to definitively validate a view but it doesn't make that view wrong, especially when it hasn't been disproved.
The 'rigorous' research offered as 'evidence' is nothing more than a personally held opinion (as is mine) dressed up in a fancy report with implied association to the IFS; it is out-of-date and arguably tainted with deference to its paymaster.
The figures it presents have ceased to be relevant to the current position; in my view of course.
It seems neither opinion is backed by anything substantive nor can it be until an official, government-prepared or funded report is available and that will be unbiased too...
