In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> Perhaps, in the spirit of this thread, you could back your opinion up with some actual evidence of posts which appear to misinterpret the lecturers comments in the way that you object to.
Just read the early posts, clearly they were referring to applying the prof's rule to forums and further afield, later on an example amongst many:
> by - dave frost on - 21:54 Sat
> In reply to Tall Clare: Be well informed, or be quiet. Great stuff, more please.
If one considers the prof is just suggesting a pedagogical method to be used in his course, ie. opinions must always be backed by arguments then there's obviously nothing to be said outside of a debate about the pedagogy but applying the same ideas more globally questions the whole basis of British democracy, the oldest in the world which has evolved in a this way over centuries so might not be just a random system. Until not that long ago only those considered "competent" had the vote and the "ignorant" masses were excluded - you can find the use of the word in old texts if you look. Lack of ignorance was judged, not surprisingly, by wealth, and gender.
Nowadays we have universal suffrage, no one has to justify their opinions as expressed by voting which is secret. Anyone, capable of arguing or not, is considered equal before the most important bit of opinion using he or she is likely to have to do - vote for a government. Personally I think that this is how it should be, that public opinion goes well beyond what most of us are capable of expressing or even fully understanding. Our opinions come from a huge number of experiences, conversations, snippets of information, even songs poems or whatever. All of which are crystallized at the key moment by choosing one of other of the very limited choices proposed.
Our whole system is based on the notion that every person "has the right to their opinion", and they have absolutely no need to justify it.