Aren’t discussions about human interactions better suited to IMHO or MPSIMS?
Just to add, argument by assertion really bugs me, and shouldn’t have any place in a debate forum. But it happens every day, so I guess the culture here supports it.
Let me be the first to thank you for you patient forbearance with us. (I’m just guessing that I’m the first.)
Those two sentences are entirely compatible with one another. Just because something is allowed, doesn’t mean one should do it.
Some opinions are utterly reprehensible. Yes, the government should still allow people to express such opinions. No, that doesn’t mean those people should express such opinions. The fact that they hold such opinions at all makes them despicable. And we as private citizens should feel free to denounce them, to mock them, to shun them, to refuse to patronize their businesses, to oppose their nomination for positions of influence, and so forth.
There is no contradiction here. Just because something ought not to be illegal doesn’t mean it ought to be quietly tolerated.
Are you suggesting that questions of ethics and morality don’t belong in Great Debates? I would say that’s almost the archetypal example of a great debate.
Obviously all such questions are on some level a matter of opinion, but we can still construct arguments, such as “If you accept X, then you should also accept Y, because X and Y are similar in aspects such as A, B, and C.”
We can also point out where such arguments fail. For instance, the argument “We (most Americans) were OK with Nazis marching in Skokie, so we should be OK with someone flying a Confederate Flag” is a poor argument because we weren’t OK with the Nazis marching in Skokie; We thought it was despicable. We just don’t think the government should prohibit such behavior. Nor should the government promote it, by, say, organizing Nazi marches, or flying the flag of “States Rights [to Own Slaves]” over government buildings.
Your “PC run amok” and “safe space” argument was nothing more than argument by assertion.
Who decides which opinions are reprehensible? You?
I think not.
P.S. How did that “deplorable” comment work out for Mrs. Clinton? Not very well.
He’s not allowed to have his own opinion about what is and is not acceptable behavior?
Can you explain how this is relevant to the conversation?
Of course he’s entitled to his own opinion. However, he’s not allowed to dictate what other people should think.
Where has he tried to dictate what other people think?
By declaring, by fiat, that some opinions (that he disagrees with) are wrong.
Some opinions are wrong. Racism is wrong. Flat-Earth, Creationism, Apollo denying, and Holocaust denying are wrong. You’re astonishingly wrong in imagining that some opinions are not wrong!
By definition, opinions cannot be wrong. Who decides what is wrong? You?
Besides, what about those people who hang out in IMHO for the very reason that they don’t have to bring facts to the table?
So you’re saying that your statement , that opinions cannot be wrong, can in fact be wrong? Unless it’s an opinion? And if it’s an opinion, then it’s not based on fact, right?
Just like you hate argument by assertion at the same time that you engage in it?
This thread sat for a while and I was hoping, D’Anconia, that you would continue, since your POV is still inexplicable and confusing to me. What do you mean by “PC run amok”, or “safe spaces”, just for expressing an opinion that something some else did is rude? How is this different now than in the past, when people were still criticized for saying and doing all kinds of things? Is there literally no speech or display that you would ever call “rude”? If there is such speech or display, then how is it different than flying a white supremacist symbol – why are you okay with calling one rude but not the other?
Your position is equally inexplicable to me. Yes, you have the absolute right to your opinion, and the absolute right to express it. Where we disagree is in some people’s attempts to “shame”, for lack of a better term, those who hold differing opinions.
See any GD/Elections thread where it is declared, from on high, that all Republicans are “X”, for example. It’s counter-productive to say the least.
Criticizing someone’s opinion isn’t shaming them. How are you defining shaming someone in this context and can you provide some examples of times you’ve been shamed for expressing your opinion here? Not just criticism or disagreeing, but actual shaming.
I see plenty of cases of conservatives making negative and derogatory statements in the form of “All Liberals are…”, so this does not seem to be a tactic that either political side has monopolized. Do you criticize those on your side of the aisle that do the same thing? Or do you only think liberals should stop doing it?
What do such efforts to shame have anything to do with this discussion, or anything I’ve said? Do you consider saying “that’s rude and obnoxious” to be attempts to “shame”? For the record (and I’ve stated this before), saying “All Republicans [or any similar group] are…” followed by something negative is always wrong, IMO.
You still haven’t answered any of my other questions.
How is this different now than in the past, when people were still criticized for saying and doing all kinds of things?
Is there literally no speech or display that you would ever call “rude”? If there is such speech or display, then how is it different than flying a white supremacist symbol – why are you okay with calling one rude but not the other?
So people shouldn’t make arguments by assertion in this forum.
Is it OK to think that behavior is obnoxious or would that be PC run amok?
Is it OK to say that behavior is obnoxious or would that be PC run amok?
Or how about this paraphrase…
“Just to add, Nazi flags really bug* Jews, and shouldn’t have any place outside the Holocaust Museum.”
Is a) an opinion and therefore can not possibly be wrong b) PC run amok or c) a healthy mix?
- perhaps a bit of an understatement
nm