A discussion on another thread here has started me thinking about where to draw the line in the expression of opinions on delicate subjects.
Someone has suggested that it would be insulting to state my opinions that people who enjoy certain lawful activities are sick and repulsive, or that black people lack self-control, or that gay people are going to hell. The suggestion was that because it’s insulting I should refrain from saying it.
What if I were to discover incontrovertible evidence that deriving enjoyment from some activities is caused by a mental defect, or that black people do exhibit less self-control than other people or that gays are going to hell? Should I still not state what I believe because I would offend people?
What if my evidence was far fom conclusive and mostly based on experience and observation?
Charles Darwin’s beliefs offended many, and he had only observation and speculation to base those views on. Thankfully he wasn’t stopped from speaking because his view offended some people.
The opinions of abolitionists in the USA offended most of the population in some areas and thankfully they weren’t stopped from speaking.
The problem I see is that people expressing there opinions is the only way I can see that we can either come to understand them or try to convince them they are wrong if we believe that is so.
On the other hand obviously people could take offence to a lot of these opinions (I don’t actually hold any of those opinions by the way, thought I’d clear that up).
My question is where do we draw the line here?
I think if you have an opinion you should go ahead and share it.
Just be mindful that if you have any doubts about peoples reactions to your opinion you are probably going to get slammed pretty hard. Read around, you see a trend. Most of the more prolific posters on here are as quick to disagree and question someones thoughts as they are to agree with them.
This is a fairly free board, but it works both ways. Hell I can just bet that your opinion will stike me as idiotic but, but hell I still think it’s your right (within the limits of which area you post it) to make as much of an ass of yourself as you feel comfortable with. Take a look at a recent gripe about Esprix in “The Pit” for a good example of someone sharing an opinion and having it blow up in her face (with some pretty funny results IMHO). Then again, if you don’t speak out and take a chance you never know if anyone agrees with you.
Oh, one thing to be mindful of: If you draw a correlation of legal-behavior to brain defects you *will be asked for cites almost 100% of the time. See we gots us some sciency folks here who love to refute sciency sounding stuff and ask for substantiating information. So unless you want to back that up with real reports from a credible source I’m be wary of delving into the realm of DNA, or brain chemistry.
of course, thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Well, that would probably depend on what type of evidence (if any) you have to form such an opinion or belief. And if you explored all possible explinations to exhaustion. In some cases, the problem is someone latching on to an explaination prematurely and ignoring evidence that may disprove the theory. i.e. “gays are going to hell” because it says so in the “mystical white book”, while it has been shown that the “mystical white book” has been wrong in many cases with similar pronouncements.
But I have strange thoughts when I go without sleep.
Actually, the “mystical white book” has NOT been proven wrong in those kinds of pronouncements, i.e. ‘gays go to hell’. That’s the problem with opinions, it’s not always practical to ask for a cite. Someone might turn it around and ask you to name one gay person who went to heaven.
A lot of it has to do with delivery, too. Note the difference between:
And:
In essence, I said the same thing twice. In reality, each statements would be taken quite differently by the listener.
A lot of people on this board require this lesson.
Esprix
There is a difference between judgement and mere opinion. There is a difference between considered opinion and unthinking prejudice. And what Esprix said.
**Perhaps it’s a little naive, but I think most people still tend to remember that it’s usually more important to be kind than it is to be right. If you happen to be a brilliant visionary, and everybody else is wrong, as in the cases of Darwin and Galileo, then I suppose it’s a different story. But I’m no Charles Darwin, and any potentially offensive opinions I may have about such topics as racial differences or sexuality, while worth expressing to the people I care about, are definitely not worth hurting somebody over.
Let’s not forget what the “H” in “IMHO” stands for…
ben901
By all means, express your opinions. But don’t whine or cry if people take you to task or flame you for them.
It is also good to remember that most people do not come here to try on each other’s ideas, but rather to shoot down the first target of opportunity - which could well be you.
If you are writing on a technical, medical, religious or political subject, you will have cites demanded of you. This is based upon the fallacy that “if I can find it on the 'net, it must be true.” The thread will then devolve into cites and counter-cites.
If you are discussing any of your moral views, unless yours are of the majority, be prepared to wipe a lot of bile off the screen - you may even endure personal assertions based upon your opinions. It pays to recall that those who preach liberalism are often the most conservative - within their own sphere, and among their own friends.
If you find someone who disagrees with you, but is polite about it, treasure that person. They are few.
In closing, remember that you’re doing this to enjoy yourself, and don’t be coerced into playing a game that you don’t enjoy.
Enjoy.
In my view, opinions aren’t formed in a vacuum. If they’re at all thought out, they’re formed based on personal experience; once they are formed they have a definite influence on someone’s actions and thus have consequences.
Most of the time I think it’s sufficient just to argue against opinions I disagree with (stereotyping, homophobia, creationism) but there are cases in which I think it’s necessary to try to make sure that opinion isn’t expressed, or heard (generally only Klan or Nazi rallies).
But then again that’s just my opinion. 
I recently emerged from a heated argument about whether or not stereotypes implied morality; ie-that the generalized group was “good” or “bad”. It has always been my claim that they don’t necessarily, that finding a value-judgement in a generalization is easy but not necessarily correct.
The same thing can be said here. What we have is a statement of opinion. If the opinion doesn’t say, “…and I think that’s bad!” it is most likely a statement of fact or observation. I have such-and-such opinion. The listener, however, may make his own value-judgements on the opinion and then, unholy of unholies, assume his judgement equals your judgement, and your opinion dictates his value-judgement! Specific case:
PersonA: “Man, there sure are a lot more fake blondes around.”
PersonB: “Yeah, I hate people who dye their hair.”
What?! Person A merely stated an observation. Person B, not liking dyed hair, figured that that comment implied Person A also dislikes it. It is entirely possible that person A likes fake blondes over real ones. (I like fake reds over real ones…but that’s the punk in me 
)
I think more people should take an effort to stop putting emotions into other people’s words, remember that one person’s value-judgement is not another person’s value-judgement (necessarily) and to try and qualify blanket statements more.
Apart from that, I don’t know what else to say.
If you knew someone who had a deficiency that they were sensitive about, would you bring it up unnecessarily? Perhaps not. But if it was relevant, you might. It would depend on what you might accomplish by bring it up. Even if you are right, it may be counterproductive.
In the context of this message board, the same rules apply. There is no reason to antagonize anyone unnecessarily. But even in the context of a debate about issues, where you can stand pretty much justify saying anything to anyone, the reaction might be such that you will not effectively convey your message in a productive manner.
Regarding the post by Esprix, the two statements are clearly not saying the same thing at all. If someone believes one and says the other, they are not refining their delivery, but rather are censoring their message.
Having witnessed some Klan rallies, I don’t have a problem with them. The Klansmen were in full regalia, complete with literature. I read their literature, decided they were sick and hateful (BIG shock there :rolleyes: ), and went on my merry way.
In my view, if the Nazis and Klan wish to demonstrate, fine. Let 'em pay their parade permits like everyone else. If, on the other hand, their “demonstration” includes violent, illegal behavior, then the police has the authority and obligation to stop such behavior, as it does with any other group or person acting illegally.
Robin
Bravo. As long as they behave themselves, let’s view those (sick, twisted) demonstrations as a paean to the freedom of our society.
See? Everybody reads everything differently. Remember that even if you couch your potentially offensive opinion in language that you hope won’t inflame, someone still will misread it, or read into it, or whatever. It’s human nature.
Esprix
Actually, if everybody else thinks you’re wrong, it is likely that you are wrong. Darwin and Galileo has substantial support for their basic theories within the contemporaneous scientific communities.
Honored? Hallowed?
Esprix,
I’m sure you will agree that “all” does not mean the same thing as “the majority of people with whom I associate”. Nor does “are” mean the same thing as “oftentimes appear”. If someone genuinely believed that all straight people are ignorant homophobes, and wished to argue this point, it would not serve their purpose to recharacterize it incorrectly. But you may be intending to suggest that many people who actually believe (and are prepared to argue for) the latter-type of argument sometimes express the former, and if so, I would agree with you. Also, some people who express the latter are interpreted to mean the former, particularly on hot-button issues.
**Well said, lizzyR, but I would go a step further and say that people who express the latter-type (non-universal, more moderate) views about hot-button issues are often intentionally misquoted or misrepresented by opponents in an effort to rally additional opposition. Sadly, this is can be a very effective tool, as many people tend to prefer jumping on a biased and misleading bandwagon to researching the subjects they’re passionate about.
ben901
**could an omnipotent God make a sandwich so big he couldn’t finish it?
If you say something insulting and offensive, people are going to feel insulted, be offended, and respond accordingly. It seems ridiculous to ask or to expect otherwise solely because your statement is true - no matter how solid your evidence is, no matter how strong the proof is.
I don’t think that people should necessarily refrain from stating their thoughts - but instead that they should be aware of the potential consequences of doing so when making the decision, and they not get pissy when the inevitable happens.
-amarinth
What are you, Kate Turabian? Kee-rist…
Yes; and yes.
Esprix