Respecting someone who boldly, bravely opposes your political views

Why would I think anybody who disagrees with me must be Bold and Brave?

It’s not like I’m the Grand Pooh-Bah or E.F. Hutton or anything.

I don’t see how you arrived at this from the OP or anything following. It should be obvious that boldness/braveness and specific opinions are going to be largely independent. There are cowardly little drips who hold the same view I do…and true heroes. There are worthless snots who hold the opposite views I do…and, yes, true heroes.

(I’d certainly like to imagine that the proportions are favorable to my viewpoints. More heroes, fewer jerks.)

Post snipped.

What about people, and as far as I can tell this covers a whole lot of ‘global warming deniers’, who have specific issues with the science? For example, the models that the IPCC relies on have very very different equations being used for the TOA (Top of Atmosphere) energy budget. This causes a wide spread in the modeled output, depending on the values that the modelers use. The range for TOA in the models used by the IPCC is ~10 watts/meter^2 which is, quite frankly, huge. And the TOA energy budget is exceedingly important. If that number isn’t correct, everything after is going to be wrong. That is just one of the many things that models have problems, well, modeling.

My issue with politics these days isn’t so much the issues as the attitudes of some of the folks I disagree with. Note, some people I agree with have a similar attitude as well.
That attitude, of course, is that if you do not agree with on particular side on a political issue it is because you are evil. That happens here quite often, sometimes from both sides.

Respect, like most things in life, is earned. Show respect and you’ll get it. Unless your Hitler. Hitler gets no respect.


Liberal here. I was talking with a conservative. I voiced the opinion that William F. Buckley would have been aghast at the modern Republican Party. He had never heard of him. I had no respect for his views after that.

It’s a digression but I cannot let this go unchallenged. The “Top of Atmosphere energy budget” refers to the net warming of the Earth:

  • Heat[sub]NET[/sub] = Heat[sub]IN[/sub] - Heat[sub]OUT[/sub]*
    Note that the IN and OUT are huge and almost equal. I believe that sleestak refers to amateurish papers effectively assuming that models of Heat[sub]IN[/sub] and Heat[sub]OUT[/sub] are independent so variances can be added to find the NET variance. But instead, even laymen with good intuition will understand that these parameters must be correlated: Heat[sub]NET[/sub] does figure to very small.

I can get along with just about any political opinion unless it’s the constant source of conversation. I do not discuss politics or religion. If you insist on doing so, you will find yourself talking to air before long.

Don’t worry. The anti-miscegenists are dying off, so there’s room on that bench for you. Ask them to slide over.

I don’t respect sincerity. I expect it. If you’re such a coward about your political beliefs that you’re gonna lie about them, we have nothing to discuss. Sincerity is a low goddamned baseline, not something that wins you cookies with me.

Now, there are different kinds of views. Someone might genuinely belief that Vienna-school economics represent the ideal way of running a society and that they’ll lead to maximum good. Someone might genuinely believe that charter schools are superior to public schools. Someone might genuinely believe that removing most limits on guns in cities will reduce violence. These are all complex subjects. I can certainly respect someone who holds these beliefs.

Someone might genuinely believe that Muslims are savages. They might genuinely believe that gay people shouldn’t legally be allowed to marry. They might genuinely believe that atheists have no business in public office. They might genuinely believe that black people deserve all the violence they face from police, and more. These subjects, not so complex. I don’t respect someone who holds these beliefs.

And then there are factually incorrect beliefs like Young Earth Creationism. I don’t respect these either.

I see no reason why I should treat all beliefs as equals.

Or unless you type “your” instead of “you’re”. That’s a hanging offense.

I keed, I keed…

It depends on the issue. If someone’s looked at the data and decided a smaller government leads to a more efficiently run country, hey, it sounds like an interesting conversation. Ditto for gun rights, immigration issues, etc. If someone doesn’t believe gay people should get married, OTOH, or thinks white people are genetically superior to all other races, I’m never going to respect them - however “bold” their stupidity may be.

That’s kind of my thinking as well- it’s more about the reasoning and the thought process than the actual view.

I don’t think they’re necessarily stupid for not agreeing with me, unless that view that they hold is something that’s literally factually wrong- i.e. anthropogenic climate change or creationism/6000 year old earth.

Assuming that they’re not engaging in willful ignorance of scientific fact, I respect them and their beliefs, and am usually willing to listen to what they have to say, provided it’s well thought out. Nothing aggravates me more than someone who disagrees with me whose argument is not well thought out, or essentially comes down to the fact that they like/dislike something on an emotional level. You can’t really argue or discuss anything rationally with them. Not to bash women in particular, but I’ve run across WAY too many women whose opposition to firearms boils down to “They’re weapons, and therefore inherently bad, and should be restricted and/or banned.”, without any more thought or argument involved, and this kind of thing annoys me.

I have many friends who disagree with me on hot button issues, so I don’t have much trouble respecting people with diametrically opposed views.

But since the OP keeps using the words “boldly” and “courageously,” I have to ask: in most cases, what’s the worst thing that can happen if you express disagreement with the majority?

For MOST of us, the answer is “not much.” So, very few people get extra points for being bold or courageous.

As others have already said, it depends on the issue. If we disagree about things like economics, gun control, the death penalty, even abortion (depending on the reasoning), then meh. But if you think that gay people are an abomination or that White Supremacy is the way to go, or that the Bible is 100% literally correct and the earth is only a few thousand years old, then no I will not respect your views no matter how deeply you hold them. There are some views that are just flat-out wrong, and if you hold those kinds of views it’s very very very unlikely that you will actually be someone I would want to interact with.

I am more wary than respectful of those inclined to be bold about anything.

I’ve never seen it, or, it has been so long since somebody has done it ‘boldly’ that I can’t remember it.

Example: Let us consider President Underwood. OK, he decides to invade Wonderstan, for whatever reason, with the Usual Senators for and against him. He invades. I’m at the University taking the class Contacting the Dead 101. Joe, from the Other Political Party says, seriously, with much contempt in his voice “I just hope we don’t have to contact all of the dead that President Underwood has murdered in Wonderstan for the X corporation…” It’s always little drive-bys like that that I hear. I’ve never, NEVER, heard it done ‘boldly/bravely’. Plus, I am not a member of any party any longer, since the ones with whom we are familiar are pretty limp, and do the same thing.

Given that my politics rest on a solid foundation of compassion for others, I imagine in most cases I’d find a Bold Opposing Stance to be compassionless and morally lacking.

This is a sad story of mine really. I’ve always been a commoner, maybe a Democrat or whatever. But my relative who I met for the first time is very right of the spectrum. As ive grown older ive tried to learn how to respect Republicans or picture them in a greater light. For instance I think they’re cool and have style. But I really can’t see me and him kicking it off. When I was young I always thought they were all about guns, but they’re mainly about being better than everyone else in every way including economically and will wage war against anybody at the expense of hordes of innocents.

“Bold” makes me think they are being loud and in my face. I’m likely not going to respect that.

“Hey, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of abortion because of my sincere religious beliefs.”

“Hey, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of abortion because I think women should be barefoot and pregnant, cooking me dinner.”

Both are “bold” stances, depending on context. One of them I could maaaybe respect; the other, not so much.

Even with the same facts and sound logic it’s possible to have opposing views based on incompatible axiomatic assumptions. In the constant gun debates here I can understand the gun-control side of the issue, I just don’t agree with it.

Don’t care about “bold and courageous.”

Beyond that, as others have said, it depends.

A lot of it depends on how the sentiment is expressed. “Muslims are terrible people and enemies of the USA”–no, I can’t respect that opinion. “We have to vet Muslims very closely because recent events show that some Muslims have great hostility toward America”–I have trouble with that sentiment, but it’s not unreasonable. Likewise, with guns: “I oppose any infringement of any person’s right to own a firearm,” nope; “The 2nd amendment means that there should be very few restrictions on gun ownership,” okay. Or, as Octarine said, the difference in abortion between “life begins at conception” and “barefoot and pregnant.”

On the other hand, there are a handful of issues on which I don’t see an “honorable” “other side.” I have yet to hear any argument against marriage equality that doesn’t boil down to “It’s icky” and/or “God says…” Neither of which I find (and I say this as a Christian) a reasonable basis for denying civil rights. I don’t take seriously any argument about “propagating the family” because no one ever seems to argue that heterosexual marriages must end on divorce if no children are produced in x number of years, or that post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry. There is no logical consistency here. So, this is a position I don’t respect.