The right to your opinion.

[Cadsuane]

Here's something inflammatory to get your tolerant liberal panties in a bunch:

You do not have a right to your opinions.

Crazy, right? But we have that free speech thing in the west, everything's groovy and we just need to live in harmony, man. It's such a ubiquitous and reassuring slogan, "You are entitled to your opinion", that it might be difficult to imagine a smiling freedom loving westerner who hasn't absorbed it. Or maybe you think it's an exasperating, irrelevant statement and a fallacy besides. If so I'm being presumptuous in posting this thread but, judging by how much I see this right invoked in cultural and religious discussions around here, this probably needs to be said.

Rights are defined by the duties they entail. For instance a right to education entails a duty to provide it. If a right to opinions exists, then it must entail duties.

Your right to an opinion does not oblige others to agree with it. This is obvious, if only because my right to an opinion entitles me to an opinion which contradicts yours.
Your right to an opinion does not oblige others to listen to it. No one has the time. Listening to all opinions is impossible and therefore can’t be a duty.
Your right to your opinion does not oblige others to let you keep it. This is probably what most people mean when they mention the right to their opinion, and even though it’s weaker than the previous two interpretations, it’s still false. If you have the opinion that crossing a 6 lane highway at rush hour is safe, it’s no one’s duty to let you keep that opinion, in fact they should take every reasonable measure to convince you otherwise.

Let's suppose Biff and Nancy are having a discussion about some topic, say, government health care, about which Biff has some opinion. Nancy believes that Biff is mistaken and offers up a few reasons why she believes so. After a few unsuccessful attempts at answering these points, Biff petulantly replies that he has a right to his opinion.

How is Biff’s refutation even addressing Nancy’s objections? Nancy during these proceedings presumably didn’t assert that Biff had no right to this mistaken view (though she would have been correct in saying so), and even if we grant Biff his right to an opinion, all he’s managed to do is change the topic of discussion from healthcare to one about his rights. Even granting the right, it would forever be invoked when it’s completely irrelevant. Obviously whether Biff’s opinion is correct or not is of only secondary importance to Biff. It would be nice if it was, but truth is not too important to some people.

Turns out truth is not too important to a lot of people. A fair number of BG posters and people I know in general claim to believe in some “higher intelligence” or a supreme being. Sometimes they're even blase enough to admit that they have no evidence to support this belief, and when pressed about this, will sternly declare a right to their opinions. Luckily, unlike the example about the highway, having an opinion about something so vague has no implications for action. In other words there is no cost in error, and believing something for the sake of believing it is pleasant, or maybe it helps them get along with their religious family, or some other reason.

It may be the case that the person pressing on the Deist's beliefs is interested in their truth or falsity, but persisting would be terribly rude and that guy should definitely take a hint. No one else is interested in the truth.

[Correction]

JESUS CHRIST ANOTHER RELIGION THREAD OH GOD

[Eratosthenes]

One has the right to not be punished for having a dissenting viewpoint. That's what it means. Furthermore, nobody is required to back up their opinions until they ask others to share them; if you keep it to yourself, you can believe whatever the fuck you want.

[Qalbert]

SHUT THE FUCK UP

[Rhinox]

Get the fuck out of here really? You seriously made a topic with this?

[Cadsuane]

One has the right to not be punished for having a dissenting viewpoint. That's what it means.

If you're in danger of being lynched, there's probably some rights violation going in. If you're in danger of having someone disagree with you, there's no relevant right to mention.

[Jaybar]

So you defined ignorance, big deal. Pretty sure that defines most of BG posters.

[Takedown3]

yay for free speech

[Mizango]

Fuck yall niggas, I want a PS2. Gotta gets mine.

[Aerin]

No one else is interested

We sure aren't.

[Chicomagiko]

I think OP is a pretty cool guy. He states the obvious an- SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[oldoldman]

Here's something inflammatory to get your tolerant liberal panties in a bunch:

You do not have a right to your opinions.

Crazy, right? But we have that free speech thing in the west, everything's groovy and we just need to live in harmony, man. It's such a ubiquitous and reassuring slogan, "You are entitled to your opinion", that it might be difficult to imagine a smiling freedom loving westerner who hasn't absorbed it. Or maybe you think it's an exasperating, irrelevant statement and a fallacy besides. If so I'm being presumptuous in posting this thread but, judging by how much I see this right invoked in cultural and religious discussions around here, this probably needs to be said.

Rights are defined by the duties they entail. For instance a right to education entails a duty to provide it. If a right to opinions exists, then it must entail duties.

Your right to an opinion does not oblige others to agree with it. This is obvious, if only because my right to an opinion entitles me to an opinion which contradicts yours.
Your right to an opinion does not oblige others to listen to it. No one has the time. Listening to all opinions is impossible and therefore can’t be a duty.
Your right to your opinion does not oblige others to let you keep it. This is probably what most people mean when they mention the right to their opinion, and even though it’s weaker than the previous two interpretations, it’s still false. If you have the opinion that crossing a 6 lane highway at rush hour is safe, it’s no one’s duty to let you keep that opinion, in fact they should take every reasonable measure to convince you otherwise.

Let's suppose Biff and Nancy are having a discussion about some topic, say, government health care, about which Biff has some opinion. Nancy believes that Biff is mistaken and offers up a few reasons why she believes so. After a few unsuccessful attempts at answering these points, Biff petulantly replies that he has a right to his opinion.

How is Biff’s refutation even addressing Nancy’s objections? Nancy during these proceedings presumably didn’t assert that Biff had no right to this mistaken view (though she would have been correct in saying so), and even if we grant Biff his right to an opinion, all he’s managed to do is change the topic of discussion from healthcare to one about his rights. Even granting the right, it would forever be invoked when it’s completely irrelevant. Obviously whether Biff’s opinion is correct or not is of only secondary importance to Biff. It would be nice if it was, but truth is not too important to some people.

Turns out truth is not too important to a lot of people. A fair number of BG posters and people I know in general claim to believe in some “higher intelligence” or a supreme being. Sometimes they're even blase enough to admit that they have no evidence to support this belief, and when pressed about this, will sternly declare a right to their opinions. Luckily, unlike the example about the highway, having an opinion about something so vague has no implications for action. In other words there is no cost in error, and believing something for the sake of believing it is pleasant, or maybe it helps them get along with their religious family, or some other reason.

It may be the case that the person pressing on the Deist's beliefs is interested in their truth or falsity, but persisting would be terribly rude and that guy should definitely take a hint. No one else is interested in the truth.

Well you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

[Alleya]

Well you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

/thread

[Cadsuane]

Well you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

You fucker.

[Not not Mattaru]

Well.

The right to an opinion's corresponding duty would simply not to force, physically, beyond someone's will to accept your opinion. Which is a question of free will basically.

So actually...yes. It can be defined as a right, but the whole argument of it being a right is honestly silly because free will in some sort exists - barring brainwashing.

So the right to an opinion has the implicit duty to not brainwash someone. I think that is reasonable.

Actions on said opinions is entirely different obviously.

So the problem is you don't make any sense.

But whatever, as the saying goes: Disagree to disagree.

Wait, wut.

[Linliel]

what on earth is this drivel?

[Mamimikun]

nice icon but kinda wish it was a ps3 lol

[Cadsuane]

Well.

The right to an opinion's corresponding duty would simply not to force, physically, beyond someone's will to accept your opinion. Which is a question of free will basically.

So actually...yes. It can be defined as a right, but the whole argument of it being a right is honestly silly because free will in some sort exists - barring brainwashing.

So the right to an opinion has the implicit duty to not brainwash someone. I think that is reasonable.

Actions on said opinions is entirely different obviously.

So the problem is you don't make any sense.

But whatever, as the saying goes: Disagree to disagree.

Wait, wut.

Good saying.

In other words the corresponding duty is to let people keep their opinions provided that they don't act upon them. Wouldn't those be trivial opinions? I would think what most people take to be a right to an opinion is meant to protect opinions which they do act on.

[kuronosan]

I really couldn't come up with anything better than oldman did.

Right to your opinion, etc, etc.

[Not not Mattaru]

Good saying.

In other words the corresponding duty is to let people keep their opinions provided that they don't act upon them. Wouldn't those be trivial opinions? I would think what most people take to be a right to an opinion is meant to protect opinions which they do act on.

Nope, just means acting on an opinion moves it into a different debate. In essence, acting on an opinion is a separate right/duty dichotomy.

What you "would think" is probably wrong, evidenced above. But when that does occur, even if it is the majority of times, the right/duty relationship is generally oriented to the action. Thus the difference between doing and thinking, one is connected to the other without a doubt but they are not the same thing when it comes down to our discussion.

I can say someone's opinion is discursively genocidal - which is of course a bad thing, but right/duty transcends the discursive realm in a sense. Rightfully so.

Basically let us pretend a = opinion, b = action. a =/=b ; so the corresponding duty to "a" is not inherently the corresponding duty to "b".

Whatever, think a little longer before you type up something stupid.