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.
deleted by creator
As it is written
depends on the opinion and what you mean by “respect”, i suppose. i will say though that if someone goes around spouting baseless nonsense and expects to be taken seriously, i will probably respect them less as a person.
OP asked this less than 24 hours before they went mask-off as a Fascist.
Yes, you do need a good argument. And no, Forced sterilization and eugenics isn’t a good argument or even a conversation worth dignifying.
Edit: OP has deleted their post after an avalanche of downvotes and dissenting comments. I have some screenshots, although I expect OP to delete this post too.
Post:
OP letting the mask slip:
Extremely concerning shit
No. Your beliefs, yes. Your opinions, not at all.
But “respect” for a belief can have many meanings. I’m not going to try to change your beliefs unless you’re into that. So I’ll respect them in that sense. But I’m not going to adopt your beliefs or act them out just because you have them.
I do not respect your belief but I do respect you believing it. French law is very clear about the distinction
Who cares if internet jerks respect your opinion?
That is a very good question.
It doesn’t matter until you get some power and use it to make your ideas prevail
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.
If it seems like an unexamined opinion or an opinion based on faulty logic, yes.
However I will often respect opinions if the person owns up to the non logic of it, even if the opinion affects me. Ie: “we should paint the living room this color because it’s better than the other choice” I need to know your reasoning and your plan for decorating. “I don’t know why, but I just feel in my gut this is the right color for me” I’m in, no further discussion needed. Same goes for vacation spots, daily activities, even bigger decisions like what car to get or what neighborhood to live in. I respect that you understand this opinion is based on nothing tangible and I will respect that.
I can’t support or respect when my partner or friend feels strongly about something but their opinion is based on crap logic or no information whatsoever but they won’t own up to that for some reason.
An argument is only as respectable as the person making it.
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.
I don’t think in terms of respect about something like this as this leans towards some kind of snobbery or predudice. Either I agree or don’t. Regardless of any perceived level of knowledge or intelligence behind an argument, I’ll respond as a point of advancing shared knowledge rather than trying to ‘win’.
If it’s a totally subjective opinion, no. You can like food I don’t, or even have kinks I don’t.
If it’s even slightly fact-based, kind of yes, unless you keep it entirely to yourself. I don’t have to agree with it to respect it, though, if you have any reasonable kind of argument.
Like someone else said, in practice nobody actually cares what I respect.
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 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?
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!
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn’t devoid of reason? In what planet?
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?
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! :)
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you’re simply wrong.
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?
“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.
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 respect facts and objective evidence. Opinion is immaterial.
Otherwise, there is no point to it.
Unfortunately there are many subjects where all the facts aren’t known, therefore opinions must be discussed to advance the understanding and ultimately help to establish future facts. Also, one person’s believed facts may be a misunderstanding, for example, hence why discussions and arguments may happen.
As such, there is (nearly) always a point to it!
I don’t subscribe to the notion of opinion being equated to hypothesis.
I also don’t believe in facts. A fact simply is.
Opinions are held beliefs that are usually founded in how a person feels about a subject. I see no reason in respecting a belief. I can respect a person, when earned. But their opinions and beliefs are not anything I require to be respected. And I expect nothing less toward myself.
It’s also why I tend to extricate myself from any argument people like to have. Because my experience has taught me that most people have no idea of what they speak, and when proven wrong in the face of objective fact, they double down on their beliefs.
So I reiterate — there is no point without objective fact and evidence.
I certainly agree that a fact simply is, noting your lack of belief, however communication is only possible through description so I suspect some somantics here. My point was that within an arguement, opinions can be extrapolated from known facts to suggest unkown/unproven facts, if only so to the individuals involved. Essentially this is that basis of any argument - to exchange ideas/possibilities etc to reach the ultimate goal of determining what is a fact.
Though, as you say, many discussions and arguments, especially in a casual scenario, are taken as exercises in ‘winning’ rather than with the aforementioned aim. I agree this is frustrating and understand your stance.
Re respect. If you respect a person (your approach being much the same as my own), does that not preculde that you respect what they say?, at least in most instances, even if they are mistaken or incorrect? Though I think there may be two points here, one re emotional beliefs & one re fact-based beliefs. The latter being more what I’ve been refering to. Emotional beliefs are much closer to pure opinion than facts.
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.
