[taustin]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

An opinion can have less weight than another because it is based on vague opinions rather than facts,

It is a fact that a sale person who is helping someone who has no intention of buying anything cannot help someone who will at the same time. It is a fact that a sales person who works on commission cannot make a commission from someone who does not buy anything.

Like that?

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

or can have less weight because it is plain bonkers.

Feel free to provide an objectivce definition of "bonkers." You can't. There isn't one. It is you opinion that something is bonkers.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Not all opinions are equal, and it's irrelevant if it's my opinion or someone else's.

See abovce.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

If someone has the opinion that 2+5 is 4, that opinion should probably get less weight than the opinion that the answer is 7.

This isn't math. There are no objectivce definitions in morals or ethics.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

But in your response to my hypothetical, I guess that person would also say it's less unethical if you browse a store but don't talk to any salespersons, or if you're the only one in the store so the possibility of interfering with a potential sale is nil.

One would presume.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I don't know, if that person's opinion leads to arbitrary results when applied to a slightly tweaked scenario, maybe their opinion about the ethics of the original situation is faulty and should be given less weight.

I note that you have not yet managed to actually admit that you believe it's OK to go in to a store and tie up their sales people with no intention of buying anything, costing them the opportunity for that sales person to sell something to someone else (and possibly make a commission of their own), but that seems to be your position. Is that correct? Do you, in fact, think it's "bonkers" for the store and the sales person to find that less than desirable?