All statements are opinions.
This is both true and false at the same time.
This is a paradox.
If you discuss this ‘correctly’, then I will respect your mental prowess–go!!!
P.S. I am going to try my hardest not to respond to this thread–it’s up to you to be a philosopher on this one.
A lot of people here seem to have the same mindset, in that in the absence of ‘true objectivity’ everything becomes trivialized as equally arbitrary. It’s like if Dad’s not there holding up the bicycle the only choice left is to tip over and crash.
All statements are opinion.
There are those opinions that seem to affect humans more than others, however…
That’s what I mean.
All statements are sentences. All statements are made by humans. All statements are assertions.
So what?
This is so basic as to be entirely uninteresting.
Humans can recognise patterns in things; logic. The one who’s opinions contain the most power over other’s opinions is the one who can recognise the most strong and complex patterns, thereby putting to rest (not always…) the weaker/less complex ones.
Humans are finite creatures, and thus cannot perceive all patterns. We can therefore say that all opinions are not fact. Facts are limited only to the human brain.
Isn’t it wonderful to realise we are nothing…? 
What do you mean by a statement? Is a command like ‘sit down!’ a statement? How about ‘I want you to sit down’, this grammatically looks like a statement but there’s no opinion there.
What about stating things you don’t hold? I could state that the grass is pink, but that wouldn’t be an opinion because I don’t hold that opinion. Politicians make statements that they don’t actually hold. Do you want to say that semantically statements express opinions (like some people hold ‘good’ just non-cognitively expresses approval) or that to state ‘X’ just means ‘in my opinion, X’?
I don’t see how you can claim that all statements are opinions because we can state anything we want; to state that p doesn’t requiring being of the opinion that p. Maybe properly stating that p requires being of the opinion that p, but thats another matter.
Irving - in logic, statements implicitly include a claim of truth. An actual claim is made. Lies are not statements, strictly speaking.
In common usage, anything goes.
Well, yeah, but then its just trivially true.
I’m interested to know why he’s calling it a paradox.
Is it that if a statement is true - that is, factual - it isn’t an opinion? That would mean that the truth of the statement “all statements are opinions”, if true, is a factual statement, and therefore not an opinion at all. This renders it false, and therefore, if held to be true, must be an opinion.
To me, that seems soluble by pointing out that statements can be opinions and fact at the same time. Otherwise all opinion would necessarily be false.
Other than that, I don’t know why he’s calling it a paradox.
Also, do you mean all statements are merely opinions, or all statements are opinions, and maybe more? The latter is trivial, the former creates one of these silly paradoxes like ‘the only true propositions are empirically verifiable’. But then these are silly paradoxes. Well, the one I quoted is only silly from a certain viewpoint I suppose. As it was used by the logical positivists it probably was a proper paradox.
Wow, 2 people with the same thought at the same time. Spooky. Anyway, it can’t be that, it just, like I said, silly.
Yeah, Irving. As I said, it’s true but trivial. You put your finger on it.
not trivial, just unjusitified
What?
All Statements are Opinions
/:. (x)(Sx → Ox)
This is not a paradox. It would be a paradox if you had a valid argument that warrants it, but you don’t, because you can’t. Your argument for this conclusion would have to use your own experiences, which means that you would be going from premises which deal with particular instances of ‘statements and opinions’, to a conclusion that generalizes about all statements and opinions.
Edit: added some clarity.
what i meant that just because dad isnt holding the bike up doesn’t mean you will fall…
I think I just fell into a metaphor. 
This is relevant to moral statements only, but in the first sentence of this article, passing reference is made to logical analysis, which is the forerunner of logical positivism. Russell, the grandpa of LP, claims that all statements are made to influence the action of another (the hearer of the statement). “Dog” means “look over there, a dog!” or “Think of a dog”. Or some such thing - some act on the part of the listener.