The right to your opinion.

[Max™]

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

You do not have a right to your opinions.

Spoiler: show

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.

You either have unlimited rights, or no rights.

I was told that I should grab the receipt for the candy I had just bought at the Kroger's U-Scan last night, in case someone stopped me outside.

I told them "I would simply tell them to go away, I do not belong to Kroger's, or anyone else, and as such I do not owe them any explanation or courtesy beyond letting them go about their lives." and left.

This sort of thing doesn't occur to most people, and silly things like this topic here do.


If an officer of the law tells you to come with them, do you have to do it?

If you answered yes, why?

If they tell you to take off your hat, do you have to do it?

Neither request is any more valid, personally, any time I've had someone attempt to detain me... I ran. I'm not going with some asshole barking orders at me because he has a badge, fuck him. You want me to come with you and I don't feel like it, catch me.

You want me to change my opinion, do so with exertion on your part, either through logic and discussion, or force if need be. I argue you have that right, though I also am allowed to defend myself with whatever response I deem appropriate at the time.


I still can't tell if I'm an anarchist, I recognize that laws are made up bullshit, I know the government is only empowered in the sense of a social contract, if you benefit from it's services, you should fulfill your end of the agreement, or expect repercussions.


I also know that no one gives me rights, I claim them for myself, and I defend them. Law is just a way to have everyone work together to protect everyone elses rights, it doesn't cover opinion, but it does not deny it either.


All in all, it is unlikely that much good will come of this thread.

[Sirrus_Asura]

You either have unlimited rights, or no rights.

I told them "I would simply tell them to go away, I do not belong to Kroger's, or anyone else, and as such I do not owe them any explanation or courtesy beyond letting them go about their lives." and left.

This sort of thing doesn't occur to most people, and silly things like this topic here do.

If an officer of the law tells you to come with them, do you have to do it?

If you answered yes, why?

If they tell you to take off your hat, do you have to do it?

Because they get "legally" to use force on you and not the other way around! So you don't have to, but you risk getting your ass beat with a "non-lethal" weapon. (Cool system bro)

I still can't tell if I'm an anarchist, I recognize that laws are made up bullshit, I know the government is only empowered in the sense of a social contract, if you benefit from it's services, you should fulfill your end of the agreement, or expect repercussions.


I also know that no one gives me rights, I claim them for myself, and I defend them. Law is just a way to have everyone work together to protect everyone elses rights, it doesn't cover opinion, but it does not deny it either.


All in all, it is unlikely that much good will come of this thread.

Good news, you're an Anarchist or En-Rout to becoming one. Thumbs up and welcome to the club.

[Max™]

Because they get "legally" to use force on you and not the other way around! So you don't have to, but you risk getting your ass beat with a "non-lethal" weapon. (Cool system bro)



Good news, you're an Anarchist or En-Rout to becoming one. Thumbs up and welcome to the club.

lol

As I said, I think Government is terrible, but it's the best way we currently have of defending each others rights.

As a group contract, I think it's fine... as an entity existing unto itself, for it's own purposes, I'm with Jefferson, tear the shit down and string the pigs responsible up.

[Casty]

You know what I hate? Debates! I have yet to experience a debate where two parties are having a civil discussion, and in the end one of the parties concedes their points and changes their opinions. Sad.

[Max™]

Ever heard of Murder?

That is a debate where the victim has their point conceded and opinion changed once and for all!

[Sirrus_Asura]

lol

As I said, I think Government is terrible, but it's the best way we currently have of defending each others rights.

As a group contract, I think it's fine... as an entity existing unto itself, for it's own purposes, I'm with Jefferson, tear the shit down and string the pigs responsible up.

I like you.

[Max™]

I get it from my mom, her dad was one of Nixon's bodyguards, and he gave her a really weird impression of Government and the despicably evil shit that goes on.

It got filtered through my own experiences with it, to my present sort of uneasy acceptance.

[hagun]

You have a right to an opinion, but there are social rules written and unwritten and everyone is accountable for what they say. In another words, make sure your opinion offends no one or else be ready to suffer the consequences.

[Cadsuane]

Just pickin' out some interesting responses...

I skimmed over the OP and your topic is only about #1. Nothing to do with the 2nd one at least.

If I understand #2 correctly, it's not too much of a stretch to infer that I think the use of opinion rights degrades the quality of discourse.

You spent too many words trying to say it(everything concerning "rights" and religion in that post is hardly helpful to the topic.) It is simple really. 1st grade lied. There is no great rivalry between fact and opinion. They intermingle(ultimately becoming one thing.) We know from the beginning we are speaking our "beliefs" which have basis in facts(not necessarily "true facts" as we might discover in the debate.) Stating this is the case changes nothing and so the questions of the debate will remain unanswered.

This seems very obvious, though oddly enough you will encounter this almost anywhere. (And yes it does apply to matters of "personal taste." Actually, everything could be called a matter of taste anyway. "Taste of ideas.")

I think that debate is just too trivial to get into, but at least I'm glad we're both on the same side of it. If I have to point out that two people with contradicting opinions necessarily means one or both is false then something's pretty fucked.

You're reaching on this one, sorry. Conservatives tend to start out with "Well God says..." in my experience.

Fair enough. I'm not really anti-liberal so I probably should've left that bit out. Got your attention though didn't it.

You have a right to an opinion, but there are social rules written and unwritten and everyone is accountable for what they say. In another words, make sure your opinion offends no one or else be ready to suffer the consequences.

Shouldn't you just be making sure your opinion is correct?

[Nystul]

There is, technically speaking, no "right" or "wrong" opinions because they are statements of personal belief. One should not worry about forming the "right" opinion. However, there most certainly are well informed and poorly informed opinions (IE "I think Obama is a terrorist because I got a chain email that said so!" is not exactly a well thought out and researched opinion).

I am of the belief that if everyone put as much time into understanding the beliefs and opinions of others as they do their own, the world would be a better place.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I am of the belief that if everyone put as much time into understanding the beliefs and opinions of others as they do their own, the world would be a better place.

I disagree, because plenty of people don't put much time into understanding their own beliefs and opinions.

[Nystul]

well at least there would be SOME parity. Maybe people would on occasion think that the other guy has a few not-so-crazy points and consider investing still more time into the pursuit of well formed opinions.

[Alleya]

There is, technically speaking, no "right" or "wrong" opinions because they are statements of personal belief. One should not worry about forming the "right" opinion. However, there most certainly are well informed and poorly informed opinions (IE "I think Obama is a terrorist because I got a chain email that said so!" is not exactly a well thought out and researched opinion).

What's the difference between poorly informed and wrong? There is none. If someone is of the opinion that 2+2=5, they are wrong. Personal belief doesn't mean anything in terms of objectivity. People should be more concerned with what is true than what they believe. If they believe something that is not true, they are not entitled to continue being wrong if they enter into a debate about it.

[Valkrish]

Epic troll wins the thread- you guys need to relax a bit.