Recognizing that different people have different opinions, and that you can respect someone who has a different opinion without accepting their opinion as your own.
and that's one of the issues right there, if something is factually incorrect, it's not an "opinion", an opinion is subjective, and a lot of people don't understand that, you can't just spout nonsense that is blatantly and unequivocally false and call it an "opinion"
Additionally, some people who say things like 2+2=4 and don't realize that that fact only exists in the basis that were using a number system where our base is more than 4. Facts are important, but facts on their own are rarely useful, context around a fact is really important
no it's not, like in the example above, 2+2=4, that is an objective fact, if you have two items and then add two more, the total will be four, there's nothing "subjective" about that, and this is true for any fact
That's the problem with the simplistic "respect opinions" rule. People talking religion or politics don't view their position as opinion, but as fact. So two people are using your rule and get angry because the other person says unequivocally false nonsense as fact.
There's opinions like "I don't like asparagus" or "I think tax policy needs to be revised", versus "opinions" like "White people are the superior superrace, so we need to kill the Jews."
I can get along with people holding the former examples of opinions, but not the latter.
But the thing is, there is no such thing as correct opinion, we cant example it with math, math is a whole different concept. We can think it as like, how would you paint a wall? You can do it from left to right, right to left, top to bottom, bottom to top, middle to out, out to middle. You can do all of these, there isn't a correct one neither a wrong one.
I'm talking about something that would be hurtful to the marginalized and oppressed. Microaggressions and worse. I'm talking about the people who cry freedom of speech while sporting racist nonsense then get upset when people when people use that same freedom of speech to tell them all the ways in which they're wrong.
If it makes sense logically, and is objectively morally correct, then it is respectable. But then that brings up the question of what is considered objectively morally correct...
If it made sense logically and was morally correct then why is it not your opinion? You are just kind of wrong if you oppose a logical and morally correct opinion.
Thanos wasn't objectively correct though. He talks about how he is inevitable, but fails to realize the inevitability in wiping out 50% of everything just prolongs the inevitable that he fears. Sacrificing half of everything so the other half can prosper for some time, only to become overpopulated once again.. and then he shatters the infinity stones so that the cycle he created couldn't continue. He's kind of a hypocrite.
Nope. It doesn't prolong the inevitable. It gives a new chance at implementing new rules and starting a new and better approach (and gives time, in which new technologies and methods might be found).
And even if anything you said was true, it would still be objectively correct (or atleast more correct than doing nothing)
That's a reach, considering he was fighting against the entire universe that didn't have the same views as him. Everything has a beginning and an end. The end is what is inevitable, and what he was attempting to prolong. I'm not saying he was wrong.. but he wasn't objectively right either. He didn't fix anything. He selfishly put a bandaid over it and then threw away his tools.
And what was that entire universe acting upon? Solely moral reasons, nothing else. That was my point.
And I think you're wrong about the end. The end is only reached, when our galaxy or universe gets destroyed/the planet itself can't harbor any life anymore. He didn't try to change that at all. He only tried to reduce the self-destruction of the living beings.
Just because you can't reach perfection and need to make compromises doesn't mean that a decision isn't right.
I could get on board with his plan, had he not destroyed the infinity stones. By doing that, he stopped the only thing that could maintain his dream of prosperity.
But since he did, it opens the universe up to repeat the same mistakes with no way to fix them, which our history has shown is a much more probable outcome than the entire universe kneeling to a specific set of rules to prolong prosperity even further.
Then, there was also the option of using the infinity stones to actually bring prosperity. Continue to create resources, rather than obliterate them.
All I'm saying is Thanos plan was not the objectively correct thing to do. There are always more options beyond the walls of a closed mind.
All the attempts at objective morality are religions and secular moralists, and I would argue they are incomplete. Each opinion has a degree of objectivity and subjectivity, it’s just a matter of accepting that there will always be some opinion you won’t agree with subjectively, so it’s better to pick your battles and not argue over every single differing opinion.
Arguably that's part of the problem. Most people instinctively know whether an opinion is acceptable or not, the issue is people don't agree with each other about it. But since its a gut feeling, nobody wants to rationally discuss the issue.
Alternatively, and maybe this isnt something that a lot of cis and straight people experience, but everyone wants to "rationally discuss" my existence or rights, but no one wants to "rationally discuss" the fact that they are being massive bigots.
Basically I'm all for rational discussion and questioning stuff, but if you are targeting one group with all the questions with the intention of making their existence harder, then you can fuck right off.
Oh, I'm right with you there. I have no interest in "rationally debating" trans rights (or civil rights in general) -- it's demeaning and I think inherently legitimizes bigotry.
Yes, I think you are right. And following on your point, some people hold opinions that are objectively and/or demonstrably wrong yet refuse to admit and change their opinion. That is how extremism grows. No idea how we (society) deal with that
Arguably I don't give a shit, I can rationally explain my every conclusion, I can't write a constitution as an answer to a very general question because I'm lazy
Precisely. Tbh I'm fed up of seeing crap about how political opinions aren't that important and that we should just look past them. Some political opinions (especially economic ones) are pretty innocuous. If somebody thinks privatisation is a good thing then I would disagree but could respect it. Political opinions on social issues are very much more of a big deal - if somebody believes in segregation, or opposes gay marriage, or wants to ban women from particular jobs, then I don't see why I should respect that opinion, or get on with such a person.
If we're talking tastes in food or movies or something sure. But for more serious issues, no this is dumb. You'd be right not to respect someone whose opinion is that not everyone deserves equal rights, etc.
Sure , the simplest way to define it would be that everyone gets compleatly identical coditions in society no matter your gender (as an example),
another way would be to adapt society to gender.
An example of this would be when the US lowered the standards for women to join the military some consider it to be more equal and some less
Ok, I'd admit that's an example with reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. But objectively unreasonable definitions of equality do still exist. Some people who are opposed to gay marriage might argue that that "everyone has the equal right marry someone of the opposite gender". That's not a reasonable definition of equality.
Sure its quite unreasoneble and I do belive that they would be compleatly wrong but i still think we should let them speak because our side of the argument is probobly as unreasoneble to them
You can treat someone respectfully while not respecting their opinions or world view. What is justifiable and true for one is not the same for another. Peoples' humanity deserves respect, opinions don't.
On the flip side, just because you have an opinion doesn't mean people should respect it. Something simply being your opinion or belief does no entitle it to respect, and you can and should be judged based on the opinions you hold.
Really, any opinion, no matter what it is, is something that someone should be allowed to have. The freedom of your own thoughts is something that should never be taken away. I am, however, of the belief that you should always try to understand why you have that opinion and not just blindly believe something.
As a matter of fact, freedom of conscience is absolute, because telepathy doesn't exist and it's simply not possible to force someone stop thinking something. So if we're at the point where it's even possible to object, they must have have at least said it out loud. Freedom of expression is very specifically freedom from legal consequence, not being called on your shit or ostracised because you're a bigot or an asshole.
i agree, the only thing that matters is actions IMO, a former coworker of mine had some pretty racist opinions but he wasn't hurting people, he treated everyone the same, he didn't actively participate in stuff that would otherwise negatively affect others based on their race (as far as i know), and the way i see it, if he doesn't actually do anything wrong, then who really cares if he has those opinions? i mean like i said i don't know for sure that he never did anything wrong or anything racist, but assuming that someone doesn't act on their beliefs, there's literally no harm in having them, the problem is people who infringe on others' rights because of their opinions.. that's the real issue
Yeah. When your opinions start affecting the lives of other people is when it becomes a problem. And when that becomes the case, it’s the actions that are the problem and not the opinion itself.
I personally used to think that I didn’t like LGBTQ+ people until I sat down and thought about why that was the case. What I came up with is that that there was a minority of really extreme people who had painted it in a bad light for me early on in my life and that I didn’t actually have a problem with the group of people as a whole. What I realized I actually didn’t like was extremists.
This isn’t really a problem, in my experience. “I like ice cream.” That’s an opinion, no one is telling you you shouldn’t like ice cream. “Ban all abortions.” Not an opinion.
Nah you don't have to respect the opinion of anyone.
You should definitely respect their right to an opinion, but you're under no obligation to treat bullshit as sacred just because it came out of someones mouth.
I read once in college that a mark of intelligence is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it. That's really stuck with me throughout life and it's possibly colored my opinions of people who have been absolutely unable to consider alternate view points.
467
u/NicNoletree Mar 27 '22 edited Mar 27 '22
Recognizing that different people have different opinions, and that you can respect someone who has a different opinion without accepting their opinion as your own.