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.
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.
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.
Yes.
A reasonable position and uncritical acceptance of a narrative are indistinguishable without the reasoning behind it. And I sincerely wish I could give others the benefit of the doubt that they reasoned their way to their beliefs, and I used to. But that assumption has been repeatedly violated that I’d be stupid to maintain it.
But what if my perspective differs?
Argumentation cannot account for that.
Argumentation requires a shared perspective and shared axioms.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you’re simply wrong.
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?
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! :)
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?
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn’t devoid of reason? In what planet?
If your perspective differs, then to the extent that it’s not extremely outrageous, all the better!
Argumentation doesn’t require a shared perspective and shared axioms (except concerning the conduct of arguing). Fundamentally, it requires that we be willing to be taken on the perspective of others and lead them to where we are, or allow ourselves to be led to where they are. This isn’t common on online discussions because of the incentives of online “debates”, which isn’t to be persuaded or to spend time typing out thoughtful responses with which someone can bite and chew on to serve up something equally worthwhile.
In other words, it’s not that people disagree that’s the problem. It’s how we disagree that leads to the cesspool that internet discussions often devolve into. If you want to argue and try to understand another person, then there’s no reason that can’t happen.
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.
I know exactly what you mean!
But there’s a really easy way to solve that problem: ask for clarification and then check to make sure your understanding of the concept matches theirs.
For example, when you say “We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite”, the meaning of the word ’ ‘communicating’ slides between different meanings. From my understanding, in the first case you mean a shared understanding of the terms under discussion, and in the second case you mean talking past each other, where people don’t really address the substance of the discussion.
Right? And you’re saying this is a problem of language and the internet?
If so, then I agree that it’s a problem of language, and one that language can just as easily solve. I don’t think it’s a problem of the internet, though, but the social dynamics of internet certainly don’t help.
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?
“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.
Aye, those are preferences and largely entirely subjective (because I prefer vanilla over chocolate).
So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”
This question is always there.
The depends on the opinion
OP asked this less than 24 hours before they went mask-off as a Fascist.
Yes, you do need a good argument. And no, Forced sterilization and eugenics isn’t a good argument or even a conversation worth dignifying.
Extremely concerning shit
It depends on what your opinion is and what you mean by respect.
If your opinion is not well explained or backed up by evidence/logic and isn’t something completely subjective, what is there to respect?
If your opinion is reprehensible, downright stupid, or ignorant? You have access to the entire base of human knowledge and are still ignorant, so what is there to respect?
Your opinion is completely logical/uncontroversial or is well backed by evidence? Where does respect come into it?
I wanted to type something really snarky, but I’m trying to be better than that.
So I refer you to the fact that you should still have respect for someone’s opinion even if they don’t have complete knowledge on it, or to put it your way “You have access to the entire base of human knowledge and are still ignorant, so what is there to respect?”.
People are allowed to have opinions that should be respected even though they don’t have complete knowledge of a subject
What do you mean by respected?
Who cares if internet jerks respect your opinion?
That is a very good question.
What do you mean by respect? And is it an actual opinion, like “chocolate is delicious”, or is it just something bigoted you believe? That’s usually what people mean when they want “respect” for their “opinion”. If that’s the case, no, I don’t respect it and I don’t respect you.
Also by respect do you mean let you think your opinion without trying to convince you otherwise or do you mean allow your opinion to affect me without complaint
This is a spread from yes to no where “yee” applies to hypothetical things that are fully objective and “no” to hypothetical things that are fully subjective
Do you have any examples for „fully objective“ things?
No. I specified that they are hypothetical for that reason.
So if I understood you, you meant in reality we should more or less respect the opinion without arguments based on whether it is more or less subjective?
Yes.
I don’t think in terms of respect about something like this as this leans towards some kind of snobbery or predudice. Either I agree or don’t. Regardless of any perceived level of knowledge or intelligence behind an argument, I’ll respond as a point of advancing shared knowledge rather than trying to ‘win’.
If it seems like an unexamined opinion or an opinion based on faulty logic, yes.
However I will often respect opinions if the person owns up to the non logic of it, even if the opinion affects me. Ie: “we should paint the living room this color because it’s better than the other choice” I need to know your reasoning and your plan for decorating. “I don’t know why, but I just feel in my gut this is the right color for me” I’m in, no further discussion needed. Same goes for vacation spots, daily activities, even bigger decisions like what car to get or what neighborhood to live in. I respect that you understand this opinion is based on nothing tangible and I will respect that.
I can’t support or respect when my partner or friend feels strongly about something but their opinion is based on crap logic or no information whatsoever but they won’t own up to that for some reason.
Agreeing to disagree isn’t something I put caveats on.
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.
Sort of. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I’ll respect the opinion a lot more if backed by facts and data.
