do you respect differing opinions?

[Charmonium]

I'd like to believe that I respect other opinions and in cases where there are legitimate grounds for debate, I think I do. But if I'm going to be completely honest, there are many opinions that, for good or ill, I consider just plain stupid - either because they are inconsistent with contrary evidence, are based on false or biased assumptions, etc.

Of course when you have that sort of attitude, inevitably, there are times when you will be wrong. But I think that's preferable to respecting every opinion regardless how ridiculous I might think it is. You have to draw the line somewhere and go with the odds otherwise you'll never be able to make a decision about anything.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

i just witnessed a discussion where two people disagreed, but it was very civil. at the end, one of the people mentioned that they respected the other person's opinion.

it made me stop and think that i rarely think about respecting other opinions. and i think it might be a good idea to approach discussions with that attitude.

do you think respecting different opinions is a strength or a weakness when it comes to political discussions?

Ultimately this is what has caused the current situation of us vs them, Democrats vs Republicans. It's also the reason no one can have a simple political discussion. God forbid 2 people have differing opinions and walk away without getting pissy at each other. It's why people have to be VERY conservative or VERY Liberal instead of just using your own rationality in life. It's pathetic and dissapointing.

Every time someone says "Just don't bring up politics" I already know they are fucking retarded

 

[trenchfoot]

That old quote comes to mind that went something like "I respect and understand what you're saying but I still think you're full of shit."

 

[Greenman]

Poll sucks, needs more options.

Rule of thumb is I respect the opinion of people I respect. When that opinion doesn't align with my own belief structure I try to figure out why.
I rarely respect the opinion of those that are spewing propaganda, the tin foil hat crowd, or the foolish that think the world owes them something.

 

[Moonbeam]

Poll sucks, needs more options.

Rule of thumb is I respect the opinion of people I respect. When that opinion doesn't align with my own belief structure I try to figure out why.
I rarely respect the opinion of those that are spewing propaganda, the tin foil hat crowd, or the foolish that think the world owes them something.

Of what value is it to respect the opinion of people you respect when you have learned to respect them on the basis of being respectable in your opinion. In the first place, if you have no idea who is worthy of respect, if you base your judgment on absurd opinions, the people you respect are likely to be nothing but fools. On the other hand, if you know who is worthy of respect you will know they have the same objective capacity as you do and have the same opinions.

 

[Greenman]

Of what value is it to respect the opinion of people you respect when you have learned to respect them on the basis of being respectable in your opinion. In the first place, if you have no idea who is worthy of respect, if you base your judgment on absurd opinions, the people you respect are likely to be nothing but fools. On the other hand, if you know who is worthy of respect you will know they have the same objective capacity as you do and have the same opinions.

Not so at all. There are many people I respect that have very different political opinions than I do. They aren't stupid, they aren't blind, they simply have a world view that doesn't align with mine. On the other hand I know a couple of people that have political views much in line with mine, but they come to them from a base of anger, they want to use the political system to punish others. I don't want that and don't respect it.

Accept yourself first, then it's easy to accept others.

 

[pcgeek11]

I don't respect opinions just because someone has one, I respect them if they are based on facts or if they force me to re evaluate my own opinions by pointing out the failures in my logic or showing me a different way to look at something.

It's actually happened many times on this forum. Sadly when people say something and I ask them for citations, more often then not the refuse to provide them or resort to personal attacks.

I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. Seriously.

 

[dank69]

I respect differing opinions. I do not respect willful ignorance.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

I try to respect the person behind the opinion rather than the opinion in itself.

 

[Genx87]

i just witnessed a discussion where two people disagreed, but it was very civil. at the end, one of the people mentioned that they respected the other person's opinion.

it made me stop and think that i rarely think about respecting other opinions. and i think it might be a good idea to approach discussions with that attitude.

do you think respecting different opinions is a strength or a weakness when it comes to political discussions?

Eh this is the internet. People are a lot less civil here because nobody knows each other. Getting off the internet and discussing topics in person will generally be much more civil.

 

[interchange]

Interesting discussion. Especially here. Few people I believe don't respect the opinions of others, and fewer lack capacity to see another point of view and find inherent faults in their own thinking.

I think actually achieving that is rare without both parties agreeing to the value of flexibility in thinking and learning from each other and teaming up to see at least aspects of something the same way. Works best if people come in with an eye toward that instead of expecting to defend what they know is right.

I don't see a lot of that, unfortunately.

 

[interchange]

Eh this is the internet. People are a lot less civil here because nobody knows each other. Getting off the internet and discussing topics in person will generally be much more civil.

And perhaps this is why we should learn this behavior best on the internet, where our biases driven by years of human interaction are suspended, and thus we will have learned a useful skill instead of a way to avoid conflict for our safety.

 

[crashtech]

Respect for one's opponent is often lacking in discussions where passion overtakes reason. I've been guilty of disrespectful behavior countless times. It can sometimes be difficult to achieve the level of detachment required to maintain civility.

 

[mizzou]

I do, but only other well informed opinions. I can change my viewpoints and do so when presented with stronger evidence.

If someone is just blowing hot air, I won't respect them at all for that.

 

[interchange]

Respect for one's opponent is often lacking in discussions where passion overtakes reason. I've been guilty of disrespectful behavior countless times. It can sometimes be difficult to achieve the level of detachment required to maintain civility.

I think you ought to be passionate, and I don't believe that progress is made from detachment.

The hard part is the civility side of things.

About that, I do have a couple of things to say.
1. In my view, it is more important what happens after a fight than what happened before or during. If shared understanding of a problem (even with vehement disagreement about approach to addressing said problem) is attained in the process, then there is much value in expressing one's passion.
2. I believe it's possible to maintain or even promote passion without risking uncivil behavior. There is quite a difference between "here is what I believe" and "here is what others ought to believe". Nonetheless, not being shown respect for your own viewpoint in the former without obligation to the latter puts quite a challenge on civil behavior.

I've been guilty in this form of pushing some buttons intentionally to promote looking at these concepts. I'm glad to see others thinking about them on their own accord.

 

[Genx87]

And perhaps this is why we should learn this behavior best on the internet, where our biases driven by years of human interaction are suspended, and thus we will have learned a useful skill instead of a way to avoid conflict for our safety.

Welcome to civility 101. Amazing how not having a threat of physical or emotional violence will let the inner assholes in all of us come out. I tend to think overall the lack of civility on the internet is a bad thing. It will and has bled over into real life.

 

[interchange]

Welcome to civility 101. Amazing how not having a threat of physical or emotional violence will let the inner assholes in all of us come out. I tend to think overall the lack of civility on the internet is a bad thing. It will and has bled over into real life.

Agreed. Any ideas on where to go from here?

 

[Moonbeam]

Not so at all. There are many people I respect that have very different political opinions than I do. They aren't stupid, they aren't blind, they simply have a world view that doesn't align with mine. On the other hand I know a couple of people that have political views much in line with mine, but they come to them from a base of anger, they want to use the political system to punish others. I don't want that and don't respect it.

Accept yourself first, then it's easy to accept others.

You don't understand that people are not aware of their unconscious motivations, that some people, yourself probably included, live in a comfortable bubble, unaware of what they really feel. These are the people who suffer from Stockholm syndrome, the ones who have accepted the norm and defend it brown shirts neatly pressed. You live on a shining surface of a lovely ocean never suspecting the life in the depths. Wrapped in the silk of the world, the cocoon that encases your soul will never unravel and release the butterfly. Those angry folk whose emotions you don't like feel what you deny and remind you of what you won't see. Their lives are full of bitter fruit, their will to conform to the system compromised from a young age. There but for the grace of God go I everywhere I look.

 

[zinfamous]

Depends on the opinion/how it's justified. I don't respect someone's opinion just because they have it.

this

 

[Blue_Max]

I respect differing opinions. I do not respect willful ignorance.

So, what about when someone's educated opinion differs from yours - do you consider it "willful ignorance" just because it's different from your educated opinion?

I've met too many on here who consider others "willfully ignorant" "stupid" "lacking self awareness" (and so forth) simply for having a different opinion. Regardless of how much you may, or may not, have researched a subject - isn't it a bit big-headed to consider any opinion different from one's own to be offensively inferior? Especially after that person is able to clarify reasons for holding his position?

 

[zinfamous]

I do, if I believe the person I'm being debated with is rational and has good arguments even if I disagree with their premises. The one's I can't respect are the ones who start all conversations with a string expletives and a post with no substance beyond personal insults and then expect you to take their position seriously.

For this reason I try to keep my personal insults, expletives, and empty statements near the end of my posts.

 

[dank69]

So, what about when someone's educated opinion differs from yours - do you consider it "willful ignorance" just because it's different from your educated opinion?

I've met too many on here who consider others "willfully ignorant" "stupid" "lacking self awareness" (and so forth) simply for having a different opinion. Regardless of how much you may, or may not, have researched a subject - isn't it a bit big-headed to consider any opinion different from one's own to be offensively inferior? Especially after that person is able to clarify reasons for holding his position?

No I consider it willful ignorance when facts are ignored or worse, explained away with conspiracy theories.

 

[interchange]

Seems easy enough to test whether someone is willfully ignorant.

I would propose an operational definition: someone is willfully ignorant if they choose not to attempt to understand a position they disagree with when given objective evidence to consider.

Is that an agreeable test for willful ignorance?

 

[crashtech]

Seems easy enough to test whether someone is willfully ignorant.

I would propose an operational definition: someone is willfully ignorant if they choose not to attempt to understand a position they disagree with when given objective evidence to consider.

Is that an agreeable test for willful ignorance?

Very often I see the attempts to understand an opponent's position as just a strawman bearing only superficial resemblance to an interlocutor's statements. Sometimes objectivity is in vanishingly short supply.

 

[interchange]

Very often I see the attempts to understand an opponent's position as just a strawman bearing only superficial resemblance to an interlocutor's statements. Sometimes objectivity is in vanishingly short supply.

I think objectivity is an unreasonable expectation for humans, but an earnest attempt to broaden one's viewpoint to see another qualifies to me as an exclusion. Can't know for certain without actually being the other person, but I would agree that your assertion probably happens frequently.

In either case, it seems you're proposing a broader definition than I have. Would you be willing to stipulate that my definition identifies at least a subset of people who display willful ignorance? To make my next point, we just need to agree on a definition that definitely includes some and not necessarily all, so long as no one ends up included who do not belong.