Everyone Is Entitled to MY Opinion....

The BBQ Pit
21

A few quotes pertaining to this topic:

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices. - William James

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand
Russel

The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion. - Arnold Glasow

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken
seriously. - Hubert H. Humphrey

Is this kinda what you’re talking about, Polycarp?

22

Polycarp, while I understand somewhat where you are coming from, I think you are “raining on the parade” so to speak.

The basis of the ideal of free thought is essentially that
“Everyone is entitled to My opinion!” That is the whole point! Some opinions may consist of facts, but not all opinions are facts.

Critical thought contains a combination of experience, facts, open-mindedness and opinion. Without opinion, no person could express free thoughts. They would be constrained by doctrine, whether it be political, religious, scientific, or what have you.

IOW, If I cannot express a thought without having to consider a particular doctrine, that means I cannot express myself without artificial constraints. That is just plain wrong. And I may be “wrong”, but I am expressing free thought.

Now, (And getting to the point I think you are making) the whole point of expressing an opinion is that the person expressing said opinion believes s/he is right. You may vehemently disagree, and throw facts in said persons face, but it doesn’t matter, it’s their opinion. An opinion doesn’t have to be factual, or “right”, it’s just there.

And of course, you as another human with thoughts, have a right to tear it apart.

You happen to be a Christian, who believes in a Deity.
I happen to disagree. You can tell me God exists. That is your opinion, not backed up by facts. I don’t believe God exists, and I cannot back that up with facts. That doesn’t mean you are right or I am right, it means we have thoughts and opinions.

As far as the SDMB goes, of course people will strongly defend their opinions, right or wrong, especially in certain fora on these boards. Would you rather we all become intellectual sheep? Whose opinion should carry the most weight? (Well, besides Cecil)

Poly, I have followed your posts with awe, envy, and respect since the LBMB days, but I think your OP was a rather pointless way of saying “People are strong in their convictions”

23

What I got from Polycarp’s OP is that regardless of the differences in our thoughts and opinions, we should still respect each other. It’s one thing to say, “I will never agree with you that there is a God”; it’s quite another to declare that “Polycarp is an idiot for believing in God, when atheists are clearly right.”

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Polycarp. I was a member of the “You don’t agree with me, you’re stupid!” camp for a while. Now I try to accept that a difference in opinion does not negate the possibility of respect. For instance, Joe_Cool and I disagreed about gun control. He started a thread, and although I didn’t actively participate, I learned quite a bit about his viewpoints and respected him thusly (same goes for Spoofe Bo Didley and Max Torque). Because I tried to keep an open mind, I also came to the realization that my old views on gun control were just that - old - and needed to be reevaluated.

I see some really juvenile shit on this Board, where disagreements over the death penalty or abortion lead to all-out hatred, simply because either side is unwilling to accept the mere possibility that someone could think differently. I see it much more IRL; I’d like to think that, as a community, we’re a little better than that.

Well, that’s what I interpreted the OP to mean. You all are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. I shall respect you anyway.

24

Is it possible, tho, that the type of “tolerance/mutual respect” recommended by Poly may contribute to a sense of intellectual complacency or resignation?

An example. Mrs. D and I both tend towards the liberal ends of most spectrums, and both voted for Gore (or should I say against Bush). When Bush won, I attempted to accept it with good grace. My attitude was, approximately 50% of the population was just as unhappy 4 and 8 years ago, as I am today. And not all of them are untinking idiots. Why should I get to be consistently more comfortable with the bent of our government than they?

So the day after Bush is inaugurated, he targets abortion. Mrs. D is outraged. I, OTOH, simply say, “Heck, he is only undoing what Clinton did 8 years ago to the day.”
Now can an opinion be expressed as to which is more desirable, Mrs. D’s outrage, or my fatalistic acceptance? Are there not certain issues you should care strongly enough about that you continually seek ways to express your opinion and influence others/events?

There is also a fine line. At times, at least in the short run, a well thought out, rationally presented position may be drowned out by shouting, or overlooked by the casual observer. Depending on the forum, it seems to me that there might be merits in “exaggerating” certain aspects of how you present your opinion.

Sometimes a well-placed shiv is the best weapon. Other situations call for the delicacy of a baseball bat.

25

Poly, sometimes people need to blow off steam. Getting worked up over someone being overbearing and obnoxious in the Pit is a bit silly, isn’t it, since the Pit exists to air that kind of dirty laundry. If the sight of my white cotton panties fluttering in the breeze makes you wince, realize that I wouldn’t be waving them around at a church picnic. (Your deeply disappointed response to my religious right pit thread really upset me. It’s as though I was throwing darts at a photo pinned to a door and you unexpectedly barged in and caught one in the eye.)

You have a point about the frailty of the ego, but it seems like you’re looking for human perfection in the wrong places. Sometimes people like to get worked up and have a good fight. Lighten up, friend. Maybe spend a week away from the Boards. Go outside and play.

Damn, and I just got a fresh sig. Mind if I put this quote on ice for a while, and then haul it out later?

26

Bravo, Polycarp!

27

Great post Poly. There are some that go even farther- if you disagree with them, you are not only “WRONG”- you’re a liar & maybe even a racist.

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lux Fiat *
**

Cogently put, Lux. This isn’t sucking up, it’s respect based on performance under pressure.

The Pit doesn’t exist as an invitation for brain shut-off and attack. It’s the safety valve; a place to take topics when they get too heated for anyplace else. The ranting and flaming can be mind-bogglingly creative but most of the “best”, i.e. for entertainment purposes, aren’t to-the-bone serious.

Please just consider that plenty of issues do cut to the bone. We’er never, ever gonna reach consensus here, folks. Good people can disagree; doesn’t make those (attach label of choice) evil, sneaky and deliberately wrong-headed.
But Pit or not, no matter the topic, people will pretty much be accorded the respect they extend others. Misunderstandings happen. Glitches in communication happen. Things that matter most cut deepest. We’re using words and keyboards, fercryinouloud.

It isn’t perfect, we aren’t perfect but we don’t have to compound the fracture either.

Veb

29

Podkayne - I’d be honored. But accept the proviso that if I wrote it, and it is any good, I undoubtedly stole it from someone else, subconsciously or otherwise!

30

Poly,

Much as I love you dearly, I must disagree here.

Everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Uninformed opinions are just a waste of oxygen.

31

I think you are missing the point, aenea.
An opinion must exist before its value can be judged. In the context of this message board you are free to express your opinion though it may, as you say, be a waste of oxygen. But that can not be known until it is out there for people to decide.

While I don’t have a problem with telling someone how their reasoning is flawed, denying that person the right to decide for themself is just the sort of self-centered viewpoint that Polycarp is cautioning us against.

Hi! I’m a Weenie
What’s your sign?

32

I apologize for not answering you sooner, I have just been slammed at work lately. :eek:

Anyhooo…I do/did see the point that Poly was making.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of what Necros was saying. Each opinion does not carry equal weight.

I am reminded of this quote from Isaac Asimov, from a column he wrote in Newsweek way back in '80.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’. "
In this country we have that great saying “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one”. I don’t accept that for a moment. An opinion is a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. So how can one form an opinion based on anything but information?

Apparently all to easily, for it seems that a great many people base their opinions something they heard someone else say, or (at the SDMB) some erudite post that someone skilled with verbiage wrote and dressed up to look sound pretty, but is still filled with nonsense or junk or worse yet - misinformation.

We are all here at this site dedicated to fighting ignorance, and therefore (IMHO :wink: ) and opinion should be informed before it is let loose before the public for all to view.

*Aenea, who is dead tired, and hopes she made some sense in this post.

33

Well, wasn’t it George Bush that said," A Thousand Points Of Spite" ??? :smiley: :smiley:

Cartooniverse

34

Hmmm, that’s not how I interpreted his OP. I thought that he was remarking on those who not only feel they are right, but attempt through disdain and bullying to put “artificial constraints” on other opinions.

I believe he’s trying to say that there are many other truths out there. Once you give into the belief that you have possesion of the only truth, then you have shut your mind to other truths that can be just as valid.

I also disagree with other posters who feel Poly was saying “all opinions are equal”. Rather he was saying, no opinion should be absolute. IMHO, of course.

35

Thanks for the clarification, Aenea, I agree that all opinions aren’t equal.

The thing that I like about our board is that we have posters who have the knowledge to seperate the crap from the “pretty verbiage”. Some of them can even explain for the class why the erudite but incorrect post is misleading.

Just my 2sense
Check out my picture.
[sub]2sense’s likeness created by Highlander and Melin’s talented son, Quizle, and kindly hosted by the PurpleCrackWhore.[/sub]

36

Wow, you folks have given me a good handle on “the interpretation of X.”

Clearly, since I wrote the OP, I ought to know what it was about. Amazing range of interpretations, some on the mark and some contrary to what I’d intended. Which clues me in to the idea that anything that can possibly be misinterpreted, will.

First point: What I was ranting on was the idea that “my opinion, stated flatly here, is the only possible right one.” In a few cases, this may well be true – the facts underlying it make it clear that any rational individual would draw the conclusion you do.

But far more often, people state, as an absolute, some view that they have, and refuse to listen to any disagreement, alternate interpretation, or whatever. That is wrong.

I agree with aenea and all the others that say an opinion, to be any good, must be supported by the facts. And that, therefore, all ideas are not created equal.

In a quite different sense, though, they are. Each person is a thinking individual with equal rights to yourself. He (or she) has a right to his (or her) opinions. With that right comes the obligation to reevaluate one’s opinions in the light of additional data.

What originally provoked this was a series of absolutist ukases on this and other boards and in the press that left no room for the acceptance of differing viewpoints. The proximate cause was grienspace’s thread on Caucasians. I have since found grienspace to be one thoughtful and competent poster, with whom I agree on many religious issues and look forward to debating the others, who had inadvertently made an absolutist assertion and failed to support it. So I’m not flaming him, merely setting the historical stage.

Quite simply, here are my assertions: everyone has the right to his/her opinion. Nobody has the right to demand that everyone accept that opinion. Everyone has the responsibility to back his or her opinions up with facts, and to change his or her mind about a given opinion when presented with refutation of the bases for that opinion.

Do I have facts to back up this opinion? Not really, unless you consider the processes of inductive and deductive logic that leads people to opinions to be such “facts.” But I’m asserting it anyway.

Debate it.