Way of stating opinions?

[MystyGlyttyr]

I'm just trying to get something clear in my own skull after reading another thread here 'cuz ya'll all know that I get confused. (Note, not explicitly regarding the other thread, not opening that can of worms again, but I think too much and it's not like that's the only place on the internet I've noticed this behavior.)

How can one person believing their opinion is "right" be more wrong than another person believing their opinion is "right"? I mean, if one person says "My beliefs are right" straight out, how is that any different than someone else who won't state it so bluntly, but by all their actions makes it clear that they think THEIR beliefs are infallible in their correctness?

Like, say one person says "Chocolate pudding is the best." "Why do you say that?" "Well, because I believe it is." Then someone else comes along and says "You're wrong, chocolate pudding is not the best. Now here's how great and tremendously superior vanilla pudding is to anything else." What's the difference in those actions? The second person may not be saying out loud that something is best because they "believe" it is, but (at least it seems to me) they are very, very clearly implying the exact same thing...their belief is best because it's their belief. Yet just because they do not flat give it voice and dance around, it's somehow believed to be somehow "better".

Note, this is not like a debate of something that has facts that can be clearly demonstrated, but a debate of feuding belief systems that are more murky. Not debating black being a hotter color than white for summer wear. It's more like someone shrieking that a world leader is obviously the Antichrist and someone else shrieking that the Antichrist can't possibly exist. Well how the fuck can you prove that either way unless the guy actually summons the demons from Hell (although even at that, someone would claim they were obviously Photoshopped )?

Shit, maybe I'm just ascribing implication where there is none, but I'm still curious. You can't learn if you don't question, right?

[Nyoibo]

Unless something has a clearly quantifiable and definable result, then no viewpoint is wrong, merely different.

eg: in purely practicle mathematical terms 1+1=2, there is no other right answer because it is a definite.

Theoretical situations is where it all goes out the window.

[Slytovhand]

Don't worry, Mysty, I was thinking something along that line myself.. the 'arrogance' shown was no different to any other opinion being proclaimed.

But.. there is a bit of difference when an opinion is a) based on ignorance, b) reason takes a back seat on occasions, and/or c) hypocrisy rears its ugly head from time to time. It's also a problem when certain important facts are overlooked/ignored in expressing the opinion - ie, it's fine to have your opinion... but 'opinion's aren't what's at stake here'.

[BroomJockey]

How can one person believing their opinion is "right" be more wrong than another person believing their opinion is "right"? I mean, if one person says "My beliefs are right" straight out, how is that any different than someone else who won't state it so bluntly, but by all their actions makes it clear that they think THEIR beliefs are infallible in their correctness?

The issue comes from the general notion that "all opinions on any topic are valid." That's honestly not true. On topics of personal preference, there isn't a wrong opinion. Those basically boil down to psychological make-up and physiology.

However, opinions on how the world works can, in fact, be wrong. The easiest illustration is "The Discrimination Card." You know this one well, but I'm going to illustrate what I mean anyway.

Person A asks Person B for service X. Person B is unable to provide service X for legitimate reasons, which are unimportant beyond being legitimate.

Person A says that "This whole damned company is racist/hates religion/is biased against handicapped people/whatever." Person A has now stated an opinion. This opinion is incorrect, since the answer would have been the same if Persons C-Z asked as well. However, Person A has their opinion, and believes it to be legitimate. It's also demonstrably wrong though, simply by observing how the company treats the "group" Person A is part of in other situations, and how it treats people of other groups in the same situation.

For a less abstract example, we'll go down this road:

"I believe that interracial marriage will lead to the destruction of morality and our society. Thus, I do not want Whites marrying Asians or Blacks."

The simple fact that society hasn't dissolved in to murdering each other for our shoes proves this statement of belief to be inaccurate, but to delve in to the particulars of the statement we get a better idea of why this opinion is so mockable.

If you look at the statement, it assumes that Whites, Asians, and Blacks are either unequal in morality, or that somehow a person becomes immoral based on how they marry. The options of this statement are as follows:

Whites are moral, but "cross-breeds" aren't, based purely on the fact that they're cross-breeds. Thus, interracial marriages will eliminate a moral race in favour of an immoral one.

Whites are moral people, as long as they only marry white people, Blacks are moral as long as they only marry black people, etc. This means that someone morality breaks down based on people with differences mingling.

Whites are moral people, and keep the Blacks and Asians in line, because those two are immoral people, and Whites must remain strong and populous enough to keep the immoral people in line. This is incorrect because it assumes that a single race is the only one to have morals, and that anyone else is a "savage" in need of control.

What all of these options have in common is that race is somehow essential to morality. If someone wants to hold this belief, and have it considered valid, they need to point to something that actually validates their argument.

Why do they need to validate their opinion? Because no one is ever content to simply "own" their opinion. People want to share their opinion with other people. They want to know that other people feel what they feel, because that makes them "right." However, in order to be right, there needs to be something verifiable outside their opinion, as it relates to the world.

So really, "inward reflecting opinions," ones that only affect you, you can hold for no reason. "I hate chocolate," "I only date tall people," "I believe in God," don't need to be justified. They only affect your life, and you don't need anyone else to agree with you for your opinion to carry any weight. "Outward reflecting opinions," ones that apply to the world, you need justification for, or else there's no basis for anyone to agree with you beyond prejudice or bigotry. "Interracial marriage is bad," "Socialism will ruin the country," "Guns are essential to a free society," all of those require some manner of physicality of proof in order to be legitimate, or else you're just imposing your reality on other people, which is revoking their rights as free-thinking human beings.

[MystyGlyttyr]

That makes sense, but it wasn't really what I was asking, and upon second reading of what I wrote I see I went off on too much tangent after my question, which is probably where the error came from. I'm having trouble exactly getting at what I want to get at in words so I'll try again.

It was more a question of bluntly stating your belief vs. hinting strongly at it and why it is that hinting is apparently better than stating.

"I think chocolate pudding is best" = bad, vs. "Hey, seems chocolate pudding is the best because..." = good. The qualifier "I" seems to be what gets shit on quite often, with people demanding explanation for why "you" think that, while just kind of trailing reasons along gets either overlooked or agreed with.

I think that's closer to what I'm trying to ask.

[BroomJockey]

"I think chocolate pudding is best" = bad, vs. "Hey, seems chocolate pudding is the best because..." = good. The qualifier "I" seems to be what gets shit on quite often, with people demanding explanation for why "you" think that, while just kind of trailing reasons along gets either overlooked or agreed with.

Err... Are you sure it's the "I" part getting shit on and not the "backing up opinion with reasons" part that makes it better?

What I said still applies. If you're going to give an opinion, people generally respect it more if it's clear you've put thought in to it.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Err... Are you sure it's the "I" part getting shit on and not the "backing up opinion with reasons" part that makes it better?

What I said still applies. If you're going to give an opinion, people generally respect it more if it's clear you've put thought in to it.

Yeah, like I said, it was something I've noticed in lots of places and it came up to me again in that other thread. Opinions stated with "I believe" seem to get a lot more hassle than otherwise. I regularly read something like a dozen forums, pro wrestling, workplace, asexuality, Asperger's, etc., and I've observed this quite a few times.

Having been reading and looking a little more, I'm starting to think maybe I've come up with an answer to my own question though. So many people use "IMHO" as an excuse to rail away and say crazy things, and then when called on it say "Well it's just my opinion!" even though they obviously don't mean it as an opinion, so maybe it's possible that people on forums have seen that tactic so many times that now anytime someone tries to state something that legitimately IS their opinion, it's suspected of being otherwise?

[BroomJockey]

maybe it's possible that people on forums have seen that tactic so many times that now anytime someone tries to state something that legitimately IS their opinion, it's suspected of being otherwise?

*shrug* Sounds pretty plausible to me. I can't think of a better explanation. Knee-jerk reaction to what is seen as a knee-jerk defence.

[Boozy]

Yeah, like I said, it was something I've noticed in lots of places and it came up to me again in that other thread. Opinions stated with "I believe" seem to get a lot more hassle than otherwise.

I have no idea why that would be, and I haven't notice that sort of thing around here. Someone can say "I believe", but if what follows is a factually-based and well-reasoned argument, then no one implies that their opinion has no merit.

I preface most of my opinion statements here with "I believe" to distinguish between something I can prove and something I feel. I also use "I think" when I'm stating something that I'm pretty certain is factually correct, but I've no interest in finding and linking to a source to prove it.

If you're finding that someone saying "I believe" on other forums gets jumped on, I can only assume that these forums have some rather interesting characters. Perhaps they're having trouble looking past the wording of a post and at the actual content. Perhaps they're just ornery bastards. I'm not sure.

[ArcticChicken]

Opinions stated with "I believe" seem to get a lot more hassle than otherwise.

"I believe" is also a much weaker statement than "this is true".


"I believe chocolate pudding is best" vs. "Chocolate pudding is the best."

The first one is wishy-washy, it leaves room for other people's opinions. The second is a statement of fact, it leaves no room for argument because you can't argue with a fact.

Of course, this only really applies if someone is going into the conversation looking for a debate.

[Flyndaran]

"I believe" is also a much weaker statement than "this is true".
....

That's the problem with nearly every vocal group in the world. You should never elminate that belief word from your mind. That just leads to bigotry and suffering. There is always the absurdly unlikely but real possibility that we are all in the matrix, and all our memories and senses are lies. You can and should ignore that possibility in daily life, but always keep it in the back of your mind when discussing your and other's beliefs.
I fall victim to it, but that is what I believe. Anyone understand that?