Can you give an example of what you mean by someone respecting your opinion and someone not respecting it?
As many others have said in this thread, it comes down to how you define “respect” and “opinion”. Based on some of your responses, I think you are using a broad definition of “opinion”, though some more clarification might be useful there. If you’re worried about partisanship adding bias, try offering equivalent opinions from different directions as examples, eg “I think Trump should be president” and “I think Biden should be president”.
What many?
When I read through the thread earlier, I stopped at 3. Looking more thoroughly now, I see it was just those 3. But it is telling that that’s the only part you responded to, like you’re not here for a discussion but to prove some point.
People that spend energy on arguing their right to have opinions rather than defending the opinion are deeply uninteresting and often stupid people that I don’t not respect in any capacity.
Yeah those guys are the worst.
You are literally one of those guys. All your replies in this thread is you being that guy.
I do agree those people you speak about are uninteresting and mostly stupid.
But we should respect stupid people, their ideas aren’t always worth respecting, but as people they themselves deserve considering.
And I praise anyone that has the patience to teach morons to be better people despite their own lack of judgment.
I described a behaviour and two qualities. I said that people with the behaviour often have these two qualities. I then said I dont respect people with that behaviour.
There are a lot if people that are stupid but still fun and interesting people. They have skills that I don’t have and perspectives that I don’t have. They have found ways to interact with the world that works with their shortcomings. I respect them.
Some stupid people decide to hide their stupidity by spending a lot of time arguing that they shouldn’t have to elaborate on their opinion and we should treat all opinions the same without scrutiny. They dont grow, they dont learn, they make their own shortcomings other peoples problem. I dont respect them.
I get that, most people are like you, it’s normal. Best thing for everyone is to avoid those persons.
But my point of view is a lot more optimistic, i think having this behavior isn’t all their are defined as. They can still grow and learn, especially on other area of life.
Depending on how much they rely on this behavior you can have two approach…
If it’s little, you can teach them better without them knowing, as long as it doesn’t directly clash with their dogma, but it requires to be subtle.
If they rely to much on it, the best course is to detach their opinions from the real world and only speak to them with very down to earth things.
I know it will not always really work, most of the time my optimistic view is to idealistic. I can have it because i’m more tolerant, maybe too much.
The goods thing is, even if i’m wrong, i can enjoy myself doing this, and for the rare time i do change something in that person, well that feels great.
I unironically think I respect them more than you do. If I had to chose between a uninterested moron and whatever smug energy you have, I would go with the moron.
Hahahahaha yeah, no. You dont need to be smart to be able to talk someone down. Not everyone who is smart wants to fight others every step of the way.
Making statements that degrade others like this shows a deep lack of understanding and empathy.
that the sky is blue for your doesnt mean its blue for everyone. Sure you can debate people, with consent though.
Have a good one.
I also dont respect people that start comments with a joker laugh.
No problem. Blocked.
Depends on what it is about. We meet and you say :
- You’re vegan. Good.
- You use Linux. Good.
- You’re on the Fediverse. Good.
- You love bicycles. Good.
Now we meet again and you talk about privacy and then ask for my WhatsApp number (which is non existing) to continue that conversation later -> The heat is on! 🔥
So it depends on the threat level. That’s prudent.
I respect facts and objective evidence. Opinion is immaterial.
Otherwise, there is no point to it.
Unfortunately there are many subjects where all the facts aren’t known, therefore opinions must be discussed to advance the understanding and ultimately help to establish future facts. Also, one person’s believed facts may be a misunderstanding, for example, hence why discussions and arguments may happen.
As such, there is (nearly) always a point to it!
I don’t subscribe to the notion of opinion being equated to hypothesis.
I also don’t believe in facts. A fact simply is.
Opinions are held beliefs that are usually founded in how a person feels about a subject. I see no reason in respecting a belief. I can respect a person, when earned. But their opinions and beliefs are not anything I require to be respected. And I expect nothing less toward myself.
It’s also why I tend to extricate myself from any argument people like to have. Because my experience has taught me that most people have no idea of what they speak, and when proven wrong in the face of objective fact, they double down on their beliefs.
So I reiterate — there is no point without objective fact and evidence.
Agreeing to disagree isn’t something I put caveats on.
Yes
What if they simply see things differently?
Chocolate is better than vanilla. Argument? Of course not.
Argument requires shared assumptions. If the assumptions are not shared then you can’t argue.
And then what’s left? Respect for the individual?
“Chocolate is better than vanilla” is surprisingly ambiguous. If you said “I prefer chocolate over vanilla” there’s no argument because that’s a subjective statement. If you said “the human pallet prefers chocolate to vanilla, thus those that prefer vanilla are defective” well now you have made far more than a subjective statement that also labels those that don’t share it, you have to be prepared to defend that. If you said “chocolate is healthier than vanilla” then you might need to at least be able to provide some facts and figures like lower sugar content or something.
The point is: when it’s a matter of subjective preference, presented in a way that makes no judgments of dissenters, no arguments should be expected. Making a claim of fact may require evidence. And making a critique of others is asking for a fight.
Not necessarily. If you have a lot of experience or a different perspective and you seem trustworthy to me, you don’t need to have a good argument. On the other hand, if someone else comes along with a good argument why your opinion is wrong, I will start doubting you.
For example, if you’ve been growing potatoes for 30 years, you don’t have to explain the biochemistry of potatoes for me to respect your advice. And if you’re a black person telling me that our town is terribly racist, I will believe you without needing a list of every single racist incident that happened to you.
I can respect the opinion of someone who is not making any arguments. I can respect the opinion of someone who mostly makes bad arguments but sometimes makes good arguments. I probably won’t respect the opinion of someone who only makes terrible arguments, especially if they are also an asshole about it.
If it’s a subjective matter then no. Like if you thought Blade Runner sucked I might disagree with your opinion but respect that it’s a matter of taste and so I won’t recommend you see the sequel.
If you’re just using “opinion” as a shield for something objective then yes I will. And I will laugh at you for thinking the sky is falling is a matter of opinion.
You’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to eviscerate your opinion if it is my opinion that it’s shit.
Though I try to debate ideas with logic and evidence.
Is simply being a living breathing person sufficient to garner your respect?
There’s respect for someone as a person who deserves all their human rights as I believe everyone does regardless of their behavior. Then there’s respect for someone’s ability to do or understand something, and that depends entirely on whether they can demonstrate their knowledge or ability in my subjective opinion. I can respect someone as a person even if I don’t respect their ability to, for example, argue the finer points of literary analysis.
My default is to respect all people. It’s on you to lose my respect.
So “yes, unless”.
Well there you go.
Let’s also be clear that people should be respected, unless…
Opinions however are another matter. You don’t have to respect someone’s opinions to respect him.
Unless his opinions are his whole self, but then it goes into the category of the ‘unless’ i can’t respect.
I would say yes. The only time you don’t is when I already agree with you, but that’s because I (hopefully) already know the good argument.
I don’t believe in “common sense”, that’s just the biases someone already has. Some of them correct, some of them not, all unchecked therefore all invalid as a basis for anything.
If we could dispose of respect for the individual, then we could replace democracy with science. That would be efficient.
Science doesn’t have values, and policy needs values. Science can tell you the best way to achieve your values, but if your values don’t align with the values of the majority of people, then you’re going to use science to make people unhappy.
It sounds like you just want to impose your values onto other people, which is precisely what democracy was invented to protect people against.
No, but you need a good argument if you want me to support or act on your opinion.
How does authority figure in?
I don’t understand his reasoning but he’s got a good reputation. Or cites such.
Authority means I’ll give an opinion a second look if my first instinct is to ignore someone, only if it’s in their area of expertise.
If there’s authority without expertise, it means nothing to me.
It isn’t a fallacy. It works pretty good most of the time, it’s easier than doing your own research and it’s how we get 99% of the information in our society.
It’s not a black and white thing - some reliance on experts is of course necessary.
Google “appeal to authority fallacy”, there are many examples.
deleted by creator
But what if my perspective differs?
Argumentation cannot account for that.
Argumentation requires a shared perspective and shared axioms.
If a worldview is devoid of reason and no argument will dissuade the person, all useful dialog is impossible.
It isn’t a worldview devoid of reason. It’s perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.
Reason is the house. The preexisting assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.
Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped… all require different house designs. Dig?
There is still a foundation that you should be able to explain. Do you want to just explain what happened instead of talking in hypotheticals? What is your hot take?
Correct me if I’m wrong, OP, but it sounds like you’re talking about retreating to the axioms of the particular belief system, as in there is a point where reason breaks down because you get to things that you (the person whose expressing their opinion) have accepted that’s different than me.
To me this is a bit of a Motte and Bailey fallacy as your question was whether or not you have a good argument and then someone replied to that and then moved to the set of assumptions which has nothing to do with argument.
For me personally, the other person has to demonstrate some level of critical reasoning for me to respect their opinions, even if their assumptions are different than mine. Beliefs that are entered into using reasoning are more useful than ones without because they can be changed which is what discourse is all about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Today I learned! :)
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn’t devoid of reason? In what planet?
deleted by creator
But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.
If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite, there’s something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as “this guy is just stupid”.
This is a problem with language and the internet.
deleted by creator
Some opinions cannot be explained. For example “chocolate is better than vanilla”.
There are a lot of those. It’s the earth upon which all argumentation stands.
So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”
But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn’t really exist?
deleted by creator
“I enjoy chocolate more” and “I associate chocolate with positive memories” are both explanations that are still personal experience that isn’t necessarily shared experiences but can be understood through communication.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you’re simply wrong.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If your opinion is that kittens are cute, I’m on board. If your opinion is that everyone over 30 should be sterilized unless they are in a top 10 percent earning category, you’re going to have to work for respect for that, and better have a damn convincing argument.
So, yes, unless.
Does the plain fact that somebody said it carry any weight?
If you’re a vetted expert in the field in question. Yes, I’ll give your opinion weight. I e. The millions of scientists and doctors talking about vaccines.
If you’re a chad who watched a YouTube video, no I’ll dismiss you as the idiot you are.
No. Your beliefs, yes. Your opinions, not at all.
But “respect” for a belief can have many meanings. I’m not going to try to change your beliefs unless you’re into that. So I’ll respect them in that sense. But I’m not going to adopt your beliefs or act them out just because you have them.
I do not respect your belief but I do respect you believing it. French law is very clear about the distinction
