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.
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 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
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?
That's technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?
If it's based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.
If it's based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.
So realistically i don't see any reason as to why we should respect each other's opinions... all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.
This in itself doesn't mean we should stop respecting people though!
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.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you're simply wrong.
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.
Depending on what you mean by respect and opinion, yes. If you're discussing an opinion then someone is probably going to expect you to explain why, that's a logical point to cover in any such discussion. Even if it's subjective. If it's an opinion on something objective, then there's an actual burden of "proof" and possible consequences, and the stakes rise accordingly.
There aren't many reasons to "properly" respect an opinion that is irrational (not just subjective), factually wrong ("interpretation" only goes so far), dishonest, or anything like that. I'm skeptical of endorsing any opinion until I know why it is what it is.
I like chocolate feel free to be skeptical of endorsing it all you like I don't need to explain myself
But is it all chocolate, or just certain types? Would you feel the same biting into Godiva datk as you would 100% cacao? We demand answers!
'I like chocolate' is not an opinion, it is a preference. Thats not what the person above you was talking about.
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.
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.
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.
I might have gone off too smug in my comment now that I reread it. Partly due to oversimplification i guess.
Is it how i spoke of the two approaches that you found smug or is it something else?
Yeah those guys are the worst.
You are literally one of those guys. All your replies in this thread is you being that guy.
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.
It depends on how harmful that opinion is. You prefer vanilla ice cream because you like the mild flavor - cool, difference of opinion. You prefer there were no same-sex marriages because your religion is against it - no, that affects other people’s lives so if you want me to respect that opinion you would have to have a good argument.
Yes, you do need a good argument. And no, Forced sterilization and eugenics isn't a good argument or even a conversation worth dignifying.
Edit: OP has deleted their post after an avalanche of downvotes and dissenting comments. I have some screenshots, although I expect OP to delete this post too.
Post:
OP letting the mask slip:
Extremely concerning shit
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.
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.
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
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.
If it's a totally subjective opinion, no. You can like food I don't, or even have kinks I don't.
If it's even slightly fact-based, kind of yes, unless you keep it entirely to yourself. I don't have to agree with it to respect it, though, if you have any reasonable kind of argument.
Like someone else said, in practice nobody actually cares what I respect.
The depends on the opinion
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.
I certainly agree that a fact simply is, noting your lack of belief, however communication is only possible through description so I suspect some somantics here. My point was that within an arguement, opinions can be extrapolated from known facts to suggest unkown/unproven facts, if only so to the individuals involved. Essentially this is that basis of any argument - to exchange ideas/possibilities etc to reach the ultimate goal of determining what is a fact.
Though, as you say, many discussions and arguments, especially in a casual scenario, are taken as exercises in 'winning' rather than with the aforementioned aim. I agree this is frustrating and understand your stance.
Re respect. If you respect a person (your approach being much the same as my own), does that not preculde that you respect what they say?, at least in most instances, even if they are mistaken or incorrect? Though I think there may be two points here, one re emotional beliefs & one re fact-based beliefs. The latter being more what I've been refering to. Emotional beliefs are much closer to pure opinion than facts.
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.
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.
If you want to persuade me to think the way you do, yes.
What if I want the right to vote?
Your opinion doesn’t need to be respectable for you to have the right to vote.
Would you like to take "the right to vote" away from those who's opinions you do not respect?
No
why would i take the right to vote away from someone just because i don't like how they think?
if someone has the opinion that we should take away someones right to vote just because we don't agree with them. that's the group who i do not respect. i don't respect the individual that thinks that way and i don't respect their opinion.
What if our opinions are similar?
good. no. valid. yes. as long as the premise is reasonable and its logical. If its about how you feel or everyone does it type of thing I just won't care as long as it just effects you.
I have friends who i disagree with but respect because i know they've considered different angles and made a decision that feels right to them. I have friends who i disagree with and do not respect because they believe (or pretend to believe?) what their family, husband, tv tell them and can't express any real thoughts or opinions of their own.
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.
'there you go' what?
Who cares if internet jerks respect your opinion?
It doesn't matter until you get some power and use it to make your ideas prevail
That is a very good question.
There's tiers.
I have no respect for an opinion that the holder doesn't understand well enough to argue since they are parroting a "common sense" belief based on premises which are easily disprovable.
I can respect an opinion I disagree with which the holder understands, but up until the point where they are willing to argue in good faith. If they are deliberately spreading info which they know to be false because it's to their advantage that others hold those beliefs, I thinknit's a major problem. If they refuse to entertain any challenge to their opinion however obvious, that is also a problem.
The opinion I disagree with which I respect the most is one that is in total good faith which causes me to question my opinion. This is how I learn.
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.
Opinions like that are hard to respect because they are actually preferences arrogantly rephrased into facts.
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 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 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.
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?
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 your opinion is regarding cheese, you're already on very thin ice
Depends on how consequential it is. If it's about Taylor Swift it doesn't matter, feel however you want, but if it's about how society should be run than yeah you kinda do
The you are agreement with others here. It depends on the threat level.
Opinions can’t be “respected.”
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
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.
Agreeing to disagree isn't something I put caveats on.
No, you could have great arguments while being an ass. When you don't argue from any morals or ethics, or a ground floor of ascertaining the truth, I have zero respect for your opinions. I don't really care about what a 'good' argument looks like, it doesn't even need to be good, as long as your grounded in reality and ethics, you're fine.
It helps, but ultimately my perception will overrule your opinion if the two conflict. I tend to not listen to or express opinion much—he says, about to express his opinion... It's like belief, where gaps of knowledge are filled by faith/assumption in order to reach a certain point of belief. An opinion is reached the same and implies there.could be (a lot) more time spent on assumption than checking other avenues. Afterall, if your opinion were true, it wouldn't be an opinion, it would just be what is. You'd be able to share the existing knowledge, not argue it. The more knowledge you can share, the more valid it is...unless I have a perception of value like first-hand experience or as a subject matter expert.
Although, keep in mind that I'll show you the same respect as you show me. We don't need.to respect each other's opinions.
depends on the opinion and what you mean by "respect", i suppose. i will say though that if someone goes around spouting baseless nonsense and expects to be taken seriously, i will probably respect them less as a person.
An argument is only as respectable as the person making it.
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.
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 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?
That's technically true, but the question then becomes, why are our assumptions different?
If it's based on different beliefs of what reality is (ground work), it would be normal to fight for truth.
If it's based on our affinity for the result of the argumentation (the house), it would also be normal to fight for our own benefit and those like us.
So realistically i don't see any reason as to why we should respect each other's opinions... all would incentives us to fight for the correct assumptions.
This in itself doesn't mean we should stop respecting people though!
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).
This question is always there.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you're simply wrong.
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.
Depending on what you mean by respect and opinion, yes. If you're discussing an opinion then someone is probably going to expect you to explain why, that's a logical point to cover in any such discussion. Even if it's subjective. If it's an opinion on something objective, then there's an actual burden of "proof" and possible consequences, and the stakes rise accordingly.
There aren't many reasons to "properly" respect an opinion that is irrational (not just subjective), factually wrong ("interpretation" only goes so far), dishonest, or anything like that. I'm skeptical of endorsing any opinion until I know why it is what it is.
I like chocolate feel free to be skeptical of endorsing it all you like I don't need to explain myself
But is it all chocolate, or just certain types? Would you feel the same biting into Godiva datk as you would 100% cacao? We demand answers!
'I like chocolate' is not an opinion, it is a preference. Thats not what the person above you was talking about.
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.
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.
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.
I might have gone off too smug in my comment now that I reread it. Partly due to oversimplification i guess.
Is it how i spoke of the two approaches that you found smug or is it something else?
Yeah those guys are the worst.
You are literally one of those guys. All your replies in this thread is you being that guy.
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.
It depends on how harmful that opinion is. You prefer vanilla ice cream because you like the mild flavor - cool, difference of opinion. You prefer there were no same-sex marriages because your religion is against it - no, that affects other people’s lives so if you want me to respect that opinion you would have to have a good argument.
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.
Edit: OP has deleted their post after an avalanche of downvotes and dissenting comments. I have some screenshots, although I expect OP to delete this post too.
Post:
OP letting the mask slip:
Extremely concerning shit
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.
No
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/
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.
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.
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
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.
If it's a totally subjective opinion, no. You can like food I don't, or even have kinks I don't.
If it's even slightly fact-based, kind of yes, unless you keep it entirely to yourself. I don't have to agree with it to respect it, though, if you have any reasonable kind of argument.
Like someone else said, in practice nobody actually cares what I respect.
The depends on the opinion
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.
I certainly agree that a fact simply is, noting your lack of belief, however communication is only possible through description so I suspect some somantics here. My point was that within an arguement, opinions can be extrapolated from known facts to suggest unkown/unproven facts, if only so to the individuals involved. Essentially this is that basis of any argument - to exchange ideas/possibilities etc to reach the ultimate goal of determining what is a fact.
Though, as you say, many discussions and arguments, especially in a casual scenario, are taken as exercises in 'winning' rather than with the aforementioned aim. I agree this is frustrating and understand your stance.
Re respect. If you respect a person (your approach being much the same as my own), does that not preculde that you respect what they say?, at least in most instances, even if they are mistaken or incorrect? Though I think there may be two points here, one re emotional beliefs & one re fact-based beliefs. The latter being more what I've been refering to. Emotional beliefs are much closer to pure opinion than facts.
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.
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.
If you want to persuade me to think the way you do, yes.
What if I want the right to vote?
Your opinion doesn’t need to be respectable for you to have the right to vote.
Would you like to take "the right to vote" away from those who's opinions you do not respect?
No
why would i take the right to vote away from someone just because i don't like how they think?
if someone has the opinion that we should take away someones right to vote just because we don't agree with them. that's the group who i do not respect. i don't respect the individual that thinks that way and i don't respect their opinion.
What if our opinions are similar?
good. no. valid. yes. as long as the premise is reasonable and its logical. If its about how you feel or everyone does it type of thing I just won't care as long as it just effects you.
I have friends who i disagree with but respect because i know they've considered different angles and made a decision that feels right to them. I have friends who i disagree with and do not respect because they believe (or pretend to believe?) what their family, husband, tv tell them and can't express any real thoughts or opinions of their own.
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.
'there you go' what?
Who cares if internet jerks respect your opinion?
It doesn't matter until you get some power and use it to make your ideas prevail
That is a very good question.
There's tiers.
I have no respect for an opinion that the holder doesn't understand well enough to argue since they are parroting a "common sense" belief based on premises which are easily disprovable.
I can respect an opinion I disagree with which the holder understands, but up until the point where they are willing to argue in good faith. If they are deliberately spreading info which they know to be false because it's to their advantage that others hold those beliefs, I thinknit's a major problem. If they refuse to entertain any challenge to their opinion however obvious, that is also a problem.
The opinion I disagree with which I respect the most is one that is in total good faith which causes me to question my opinion. This is how I learn.
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.
Opinions like that are hard to respect because they are actually preferences arrogantly rephrased into facts.
Depends on what it is about. We meet and you say :
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 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'.
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.
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?
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 your opinion is regarding cheese, you're already on very thin ice
Depends on how consequential it is. If it's about Taylor Swift it doesn't matter, feel however you want, but if it's about how society should be run than yeah you kinda do
The you are agreement with others here. It depends on the threat level.
Opinions can’t be “respected.”
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
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.
Agreeing to disagree isn't something I put caveats on.
No, you could have great arguments while being an ass. When you don't argue from any morals or ethics, or a ground floor of ascertaining the truth, I have zero respect for your opinions. I don't really care about what a 'good' argument looks like, it doesn't even need to be good, as long as your grounded in reality and ethics, you're fine.
It helps, but ultimately my perception will overrule your opinion if the two conflict. I tend to not listen to or express opinion much—he says, about to express his opinion... It's like belief, where gaps of knowledge are filled by faith/assumption in order to reach a certain point of belief. An opinion is reached the same and implies there.could be (a lot) more time spent on assumption than checking other avenues. Afterall, if your opinion were true, it wouldn't be an opinion, it would just be what is. You'd be able to share the existing knowledge, not argue it. The more knowledge you can share, the more valid it is...unless I have a perception of value like first-hand experience or as a subject matter expert.
Although, keep in mind that I'll show you the same respect as you show me. We don't need.to respect each other's opinions.
depends on the opinion and what you mean by "respect", i suppose. i will say though that if someone goes around spouting baseless nonsense and expects to be taken seriously, i will probably respect them less as a person.
An argument is only as respectable as the person making it.