The Real Donald Trump Exposed... Who is He?

[Spendulus]

Okay, and I understand where you are coming from. But if I was to say, for example, "Manifestly obvious that persons claiming Trump's shit are heavily flawed non-patriots."

It says nothing about my OPINION at all.

That IS an opinion and nothing more.

How can you link the fact of not liking Trump or his actions and not being patriot?
There is simply no link between the two. Those are completely different facts. You can have the impression it is the case of course and it might even be the case in reality, but unless you've conducted some kind of survey or statistical work on this question you're obviously just voicing your opinion.
Which is fine of course.
But it's just an opinion.

No, let me explain. Suppose I say "The media is biased against Trump."
...and you say, "No, that's just your opinion."
...and I say, "Wrong. Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light."

I've said nothing about my opinions...

[mOgliE]

No, let me explain. Suppose I say "The media is biased against Trump."
...and you say, "No, that's just your opinion."
...and I say, "Wrong. Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light."

I've said nothing about my opinions...

Sure because opinion is no longer in the scope of the discussion as you brought a fact.

If you say "the media is biased against Trump" it's an opinion, if you say "the media is biased against Trump, as this study/survey show" it becomes a fact.

Also your example "Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light." isn't exactly a proof of a biase against Trump as a negative light isn't a bias if the actions done by the individual are negative. I mean a serial killer will never ever get a "positive light review" in a media simply because there is nothing positive to say. See what I mean? But anyway I'm nit-picking because that's not the case for Trump, if you were to prove that 95% of media mention Trump in a negative way it would prove that they're biased against him ofc.

[Spendulus]

No, let me explain. Suppose I say "The media is biased against Trump."
...and you say, "No, that's just your opinion."
...and I say, "Wrong. Surveys show 93% of times Trump is mentioned it's done in a negative light."

I've said nothing about my opinions...

Sure because opinion is no longer in the scope of the discussion as you brought a fact.

If you say "the media is biased against Trump" it's an opinion, if you say "the media is biased against Trump, as this study/survey show" it becomes a fact.
....

No, it does not.

It is only at that time that the ignorant person realized the previous statement had empirical support. But he was (or in a reasonably structured debate, should have been) warned of that empirical support by the framing of the original assertion.

As an example of this, suppose you were in a room with nine other people, and such a statement was made. The others all know the facts, but you did not. Reality is reality, it was just you that was ignorant of that.

In the real world, in the realm of science, it does not matter if the reverse is true. Nine could be flat wrong, and one right.