Your thinking is still sloppy, though. If someone says “Gay marriage is wrong,” then asking for a cite is ridiculous, you’re right. All they’ve done is offer a pure opinion with zero truth value. You might ask them why they have that opinion. They might answer, “Gay marriage harms traditional marriages,” in which case they’ve stated a belief, one that has a truth value; at this point, asking for a cite is appropriate (although you’d be better served by asking them how it harms traditional marriages and getting them pinned down to a clearer position first). If they say, “gays want to force my church to marry them,” then they’ve completely left opinionland–even if they preface it with, “In my opinion”–and asking for a cite is absolutely the best approach.
Why on earth should prefacing dumb shit with “in my opinion” make it off-limits to reasonable debate?
The thing is, to me “Cite?” equates to “Says Who?”. So, if someone feels that gay marriage harms traditional marriages, demanding a cite is the same as saying “Says Who?” to which the invariable answer (from the sort of people who object to gay marriage) is going to be either “Says Me”, “Says My Pastor”, or “Says God”. All of which bring you right back to square one; ie they’ve got an opinion/belief different from yours that’s been arrived at via some non-empirical method and is thus their opinion because that’s how they feel about the issue.
It’s not their opinion if it’s fact, though- if gays really are forcing that person’s church to marry them, then they don’t have an opinion, they have knowledge of a fact. Different again.
If gays aren’t forcing that person’s church to marry them, but that person thinks they are, then they have a belief. Which is not the same thing as an opinion, although as I’ve said, I think the two (opinions and belief) are closely related.
Because opinions are- generally- completely subjective, resistant to change, frost attacks, and small arms fire, and when someone says “In my opinion…” it’s a handy shorthand for “This is how I feel about [Issue] and nothing you can say or do will change that”. So, there’s no point debating it because you’ll rapidly find your head metaphorically repeatedly introducing itself to a brick wall.
Ah, here’s the problem. I believe generally when people say “Cite?” they’re saying, “What’s your evidence for this claim?”
You’re getting closer. You’re correct that it’s not their opinion if it’s fact. But it’s ALSO not their opinion if it’s bullshit. In either case, it’s a factual claim, not an opinion, and as such, asking for a cite (that is, asking for evidence) is an appropriate response.
(Note that while I won’t use “belief” and “opinion” interchangeably, I’m using “factual claim” and “belief” almost interchangeably: the exception is that “belief” implies sincerity. I may make the factual claim that aliens control the US government without believing it to be true).
True opinions are completely subjective, absolutely–but beliefs are not. True, some people are completely resistant to evidence that contradicts their beliefs, but not everyone is like that, and people who are deserve to be mocked. In my opinion.
Good for you. I have quite a few vets in my family-who’ve said pretty much the same thing about Bush than calm kiwi has…and far, far worse. (You should have heard the things my grandfather, a WWII vet, has to say about Reagan). My cousin just got back from my Iraq two years ago, his younger brother’s going over now, and they have PLENTY to say about the president.
I don’t know what you defended, but it sure as hell wasn’t the USA…or at least, what it the USA is supposed stand for.
So after a couple of days away from SDMB and then reading the responses, I realized a few things.
I re-read my original post; I did not do a very good job of expressing my thoughts. For this I apologize. I should have kept the emotion out of it.
I am in a very small minority.
Some of you are pretty adept at sophomoric name-calling.
Dead Badger was right.
and
For the record, I never said that calm kiwi (or anybody else) did not have the right to say what she wanted. I just said that I didn’t like it and I am sick of hearing it. It had nothing to do with rights. I think it is wrong and I started the thread in the Pit because I was angry.
So I will leave you all to bitch about how things are and hope they will get better. I will go on doing what I have been doing every day for more than twenty-seven years - defending your right to say whatever you want and working to make the world a little better and safer for us, our children, and our grandchildren.
While I (and I’m sure others) appreciate you coming off the ledge a bit, why bother defending it if you’re going to get pissy when somebody exercises it?
Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like, “Poor me, you all are selfish bastards-I, however, am doing the right thing, I am bearing the burden of your selfishness?”
Because if so, stuff it up your ass sideways. Like I said, I have two cousins in the military-one going over to Iraq as we speak, who’d tell you the same damned thing. (And he’d have a HELL of a lot worse to say about Bush than calling him a “joke.”)
Oh, horseshit, Martini, for all the reason’s **LHD **has given you. **Crafter_Man **was doing the classic stunt of stating something empirical and then running away squealing it was merely opinion when called on it. It’s the classic whiny pussy way of stating the insupportable but attempting to avoid any responsibility for it around here. Shame on you for falling for it.
If someone has the sort of dumbass belief that (as you yourself say) is so inchoate, and so unsupported by coherent reason that they can’t enunciate any basis for it, then fuck 'em. They shouldn’t spout it on an empirically based messageboard devoted to fighting ignorance. And if they do they should be called on it. It should be not merely permissable but expected.
I think we’re disagreeing over different points here. “Cite” means “In which reputable publication did you see the information upon which you are basing your assertion?”
So, had someone asked Crafter Man “Why do you think that?”, then I’d be OK with it. But asking “Cite?” Not OK. Your opinion is not something that’s likely to be found in The Lancet (unless you’re a respected leading expert in your field), and is thus inherently unciteable.
This board stopped being about “Fighting Ignorance” and became “Conforming to Popular Opinion” a loooong time ago.
No it just means “back your factual assertion”. The higher the reputability of the backing, the greater the credibility of the assertion. If Crafter_Man just wanted to make a hit and run assertion but not back it in any way, then he should expect his comment to be respected accordingly. Saying that he wouldn’t be able to back it with some ultimate cite from a hyper-respected peer reviewed journal so therefore asking for a cite at all is unreasonable is horseshit.
And you are helping this by watering down standards and fighting the culture of requesting cites how? You and others who are trying to build a culture of offense at the word “cite” are a problem, in my view. Go play on 4chan, or write some comments on youtube.
Rubbish. The political positions which have overwhelming support around here are the ones supported by the facts and/or logic.
There’s a very good reason why almost nobody around here is anti-gay rights, but lots of people are anti-gun control; it’s because there is no logical support for virtually any anti-gay position, whereas there’s plenty of logical support for anti-gun control positions.
That was apparently a shitty attempt at melodramatic, feigned martyrdom. It wassupposed to be humorous. Once again, it appears that I put forth a poor effort expressing myself.
Someone earlier mentioned wanting people to “like me” (sorry for not quoting the post.) I’m not actually very interested in whether or not people like me, but I would like to be understood. Obviously, I’m having a difficult time of this on the message boards.
To paraphrase Wilbon and Kornheiser… I’ll try to do better next time.
…as a fellow Kiwi (not necessaryily a calm one though!) I completely disagree with nearly everything in your opening post, but oddly enough I understand the sentiment.
But putting that aside I hope you stick around: I at least understood your attempt at humour! This is a pretty cool place: even when we disagree.
