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.
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.
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?
Opinions like that are hard to respect because they are actually preferences arrogantly rephrased into facts.
“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.
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.
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 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?
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.
“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.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you’re simply wrong.
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! :)
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!
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?
If your opinion is regarding cheese, you’re already on very thin ice
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
