Opinions in the Politics Section: What's Yours?

[toastywombel]

I contend that... on a discussion forum, unsupported disagreement truly is worth less.

 

It's fine if you choose to disagree. However, if you decide to login, hit the reply button, and then openly express your disagreement for all to see... putting it forth as a piece of the overall puzzle which is a discussion thread or debate... but then fail to support it or provide details when asked, then your contribution truly is worth less... not worthless, but worth less.

 

Am I really that far in left field with this? I'm being treated like I'm talking about the existence of unicorns as a valid part of our reality when, in fact, my points are reasonable overall.

 

Sure... Disagree. Awesome... but don't just disagree and leave it at that... don't put forth your position as counter to that espoused by previous posters and then hide behind calling it an opinion instead of defending/supporting/detailing it when that position is challenged.

 

That is not true iNow, the people who do not support their points here, are a good contrast against people who do support their points, to an anonymous reader of course.

 

That is how one educates the public on how to spot the "bs" from the good stuff. If someone just disagrees, I think most readers would tend to favor with your point of view as opposed to theirs.

[swansont]

I contend that... on a discussion forum, unsupported disagreement truly is worth less.

 

It's fine if you choose to disagree. However, if you decide to login, hit the reply button, and then openly express your disagreement for all to see... putting it forth as a piece of the overall puzzle which is a discussion thread or debate... but then fail to support it or provide details when asked, then your contribution truly is worth less... not worthless, but worth less.

 

Am I really that far in left field with this? I'm being treated like I'm talking about the existence of unicorns as a valid part of our reality when, in fact, my points are reasonable overall.

 

Sure... Disagree. Awesome... but don't just disagree and leave it at that... don't put forth your position as counter to that espoused by previous posters and then hide behind calling it an opinion instead of defending/supporting/detailing it when that position is challenged.

 

I understand your position, and I acknowledge that it seems silly to not engage in discussion on a discussion board. But I think that's a separate issue. You say "when that position is challenged." The issue here is whether you challenge the opinion or the justification/support of the opinion. Opinions should be respected. The support may be challenged, in a civil manner. So if I say "I fully support the existence of Astroturf and the designated hitter" you'll just have to accept that those are my positions. You are free at that point to list all of the arguments against artificial turf and the DH, if you are so inclined, but one may not tell me I'm wrong or dimwitted for having my opinion.

[Rickdog]

Specifically in politics, a wide range of issues is what makes our opinions develop in our minds and its not easy to explain in a few words comprehended, why do we ever feel or think as we do. Most of the time we don`t even know ourselves, why do we think as we do. So if you can`t really know the reasons why you think as you do, it is more difficult to express to others the exact reasons why you do. Anyhow, my opinion deserves all the respect since it was given in respect and freely.

 

Lots of us are not really prepared for long speaches and reasons, full of semantics and philosophical reasons, so when we express our opinions, most of the time with maybe a small argument, when you get disproved when your words weren`t satisfactory, you could probably get a very big answer that only achieves that in the future, I will probably never participate again in any way, which is a sad issue, since you are unwillingly excluding those who think as I do, and who will ever give you an opinion in the future.

[Phi for All]

That is not true iNow, the people who do not support their points here, are a good contrast against people who do support their points, to an anonymous reader of course.

 

That is how one educates the public on how to spot the "bs" from the good stuff. If someone just disagrees, I think most readers would tend to favor with your point of view as opposed to theirs.

I agree with this. It is overly arrogant to assume the reader can't distinguish a well-supported argument. If anything, the less supported ones help the more supported ones by contrast.

 

And ultimately, a poll like this should never be used to bash people over the head and tell them they are less valid around here than anyone else. You can argue that you are talking about their opinions and not them personally, but since opinion is often inextricable from the person who holds it, that's the way it comes off, as a demeaning tactic. And it's a tactic that drives potentially good people off, leaving nothing but like-minded back-patters. That kind of compound mentality makes for one-sided, boring discussions.

[iNow]

And ultimately, a poll like this should never be used to bash people over the head and tell them they are less valid around here than anyone else.

I'm sorry, Phi for All, but would you please be able to demonstrate precisely where you think that has happened? I'd like a quote and/or a link if at all possible so as to try to familiarize myself and see what you see. Thanks.

[jackson33]

So if you can`t really know the reasons why you think as you do, it is more difficult to express to others the exact reasons why you do. Anyhow, my opinion deserves all the respect since it was given in respect and freely. [/Quote]

 

Rickdog; Speaking as an occasional poster on this forum, I really don't think you need to worry about being drawn into a controversy over your opinions. I for one, have read some of your contributions, because you are from Chile and WANT to hear your opinions, especially those on American Politics, no less than any opinions/viewpoints from folks outside the US.

 

Then it's my opinion (I'm getting to hate that word) we're still talking style/manner, where experienced posters, often moderators, will attack other experienced posters, they would never agree on any issue, to begin with. However these same villains, for all practical purposes treat 99.9% of posters with respect, often going to extremes in helping others to bring out their points in an open discussion.

 

I will probably never participate again in any way, which is a sad issue, since you are unwillingly excluding those who think as I do, and who will ever give you an opinion in the future. [/Quote]

 

I do hope you reconsider and state your opinions. While this may be a Science Forum, they have sub-forums I really don't think were intended to be under the strict rules for science issues. Suggestions/Comments for instance is pure opinion and some others, would never get posters, without allowing opinions, General Discussion/Politics. Those comments made on this thread, were intended to individuals in an argumentative manner, over other issues with individual have personality conflicts with...

[iNow]

You say "when that position is challenged." The issue here is whether you challenge the opinion or the justification/support of the opinion.

 

I think the larger point in context of this thread is that there is often no justification/support of the opinion to challenge, which leaves nothing else except to challenge the opinion itself. It's sort of a catch-22, AFAICT.

[Phi for All]

I'm sorry, Phi for All, but would you please be able to demonstrate precisely where you think that has happened? I'd like a quote and/or a link if at all possible so as to try to familiarize myself and see what you see. Thanks.

Well, the poll isn't done yet, is it? But when finished, I can easily see it being used to squelch the opinions of others in the future, especially newcomers, by claiming that it has been previously established by poll that their opinions are worth less due to less rigorous support. And no matter how you emphasize worth less, to many it will still read as worthless.

 

I'm not as willing to chase off more members just to justify some kind of mental score-keeping for discussion parameters. I've seen too many leave because of persecution, ridicule and demeaning tactics (Rickdog, I hope you will give us a chance and stick around).

 

Frankly, this whole idea, while well-intentioned and seemingly innocuous, is coming off like some kind of fascist classification methodology, designed to elevate the status of those selected by their superior actions with regard to the opinions they espouse. I'm really sorry you can't seem to see this, iNow.

[Rickdog]

My friends, although it seemed as I was going to retire myself of around here. Well, actually as what I posted, really that wasn`t my inttention, only that in not finding the correct words of how to express myself correctly that`s what it seemed like, and that preciselly is what I was pointing out. Sometimes when your language isn`t native english, although you manage it quite well, you make mistakes, as the one I just did unintentionally, btw.() In my last parragraph I was speaking in first person as part of a group of people with our "diferent" condition.

 

Jackson33 and Phi for all, I appreciate your concern about it, but really I ask for your forgiveness for not being able to express my self correct, which lead you, to think otherwise, sorry and thanks.

 

To not cause a wrong impression, I tell you : I will stay around alright, unless of course I`m asked explicitely on the contrary, which I`ll comply, since its not my intention to cause any troubles at all. I enjoy it, around here.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Rickdog
trying to clarify an expression

[Phi for All]

Jackson33 and Phi for all, I appreciate your concern about it, but really I ask for your forgiveness for not being able to express my self correct, which lead you, to think otherwise, sorry and thanks.

No problem. As jackson33 said, we're all very interested in hearing your viewpoint and opinions, and if I have anything to say in the matter, they will never be considered as worth less. Thanks for clarifying.

[iNow]

Well, the poll isn't done yet, is it? But when finished, I can easily see it being used to squelch the opinions of others in the future, especially newcomers, by claiming that it has been previously established by poll that their opinions are worth less due to less rigorous support.

 

<...>

 

Frankly, this whole idea, while well-intentioned and seemingly innocuous, is coming off like some kind of fascist classification methodology, designed to elevate the status of those selected by their superior actions with regard to the opinions they espouse.

 

Good lord, man. It's just a poll. I wanted to dialog with other members to see how people felt on this issue. You've really worked up quite a little narrative there.

 

Please don't attribute to me things which you personally forecast MIGHT happen, 'kay?

[Phi for All]

Good lord, man. It's just a poll. I wanted to dialog with other members to see how people felt on this issue. You've really worked up quite a little narrative there.

 

Please don't attribute to me things which you personally forecast MIGHT happen, 'kay?

But I thought forecasting what MIGHT happen was OK with you. To support this, I offer the following:

 

Let me ask you, mate...

 

At what point in time did we as a nation lose our way and abandon our core values so profoundly?

Why should one need to first be convinced that modern suffering surpasses some arbitrary subjective threshold before implementing a change of the nature discussed in this thread?

Since when is it not enough to simply argue and fight on principle alone and just "do the right thing" for the citizens of our country?

Since when is it not enough to defend equality for its own sake, even though the inequality appears minor to a few outside observers?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,

and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

 

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

 

 

All we're doing is speaking up, Pangloss. I'm sorry that you won't join the chorus without us demonstrating some amount of suffering and pain that surpasses your arbitrary personal thresholds.

All I'm doing is speaking up for the people who might be abused by the results of your poll that was aimed at proving their opinions are worth less.

[iNow]

Who's making things personal, now?

 

I find your comparison to my point about speaking out to support the establishment clause in our constitution in that other thread fatally strained, but that's your opinion and opinions are respected here (apparently, unless they are offered by me) so have at it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

your poll that was aimed at proving their opinions are worth less.

This was not my intent, and I will now repeat my previous request. Please don't attribute to me things which you personally forecast MIGHT happen. I will add to it, please don't assert as fact what you personally think my motivations MIGHT have been for creating this thread.

 

If you would like to ask me to confirm something about my motivations, then do it do it. However, please don't state what they are without first confirming with me that your stance is accurate or reality-based.

Edited March 22, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the larger point in context of this thread is that there is often no justification/support of the opinion to challenge, which leaves nothing else except to challenge the opinion itself. It's sort of a catch-22, AFAICT.

 

Except that you can't actually challenge a real opinion. I like chocolate, in my opinion chocolate tastes good. Go ahead, try to challenge that! Anything that can be credibly challenged loses its status as opinion (including a professed opinion of liking chocolate vs something like brain scans done while eating chocolate and other foods I like).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Good lord, man. It's just a poll. I wanted to dialog with other members to see how people felt on this issue. You've really worked up quite a little narrative there.

 

Please don't attribute to me things which you personally forecast MIGHT happen, 'kay?

 

Well what did you expect us rather clever scientifically minded folks to think you might use the poll for, considering that you created the poll shortly after arguing about whether someone's opinion was worth less than yours due to lack of support?

Edited March 22, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Rickdog]

There have been numerous threads in Politics where members like myself are castigated for challenging unsupported opinions, and in doing so have been repeatedly told by the Moderator that "All opinions are equal on this forum."

 

I disagree with that. I think opinions which are supported with fact, substance, and logic will nearly ALWAYS be better than those which are simply put forth as opinion alone and left at that.

 

Personal Opinion or fact ?

 

This is not about silencing people who don't support their opinion. This is not about censoring unsupported opinions or saying they have no place here. This is about acknowledging that not all opinions are equal and that it's fair to acknowledge that while posting here that a supported opinion is better than one merely put forth.

 

What do you think?

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion

 

To me, opinions are personal always. And one can`t be better or worse than the others. It depends on the owner of that opinion. You can like it or not, but that only depends on how you feel about it, nothing else....

Edited March 22, 2010 by Rickdog
correcting

[swansont]

I think the larger point in context of this thread is that there is often no justification/support of the opinion to challenge, which leaves nothing else except to challenge the opinion itself. It's sort of a catch-22, AFAICT.

 

What is there to challenge? What you have is the knowledge that someone holds a different opinion — nothing else. I don't see a catch-22 here at all.

[bascule]

I'll present an unsubstantiated opinion and agree with iNow that challenging unsubstantiated opinions is a good thing, not something you should be chastised for. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if your opinion doesn't hold water it's not beyond reproach. I'll also say I've felt chastised for criticizing the opinions of others.

 

Reading over the thread though, sounds like I'm the only one who agrees with iNow.

[mooeypoo]

I'll present an unsubstantiated opinion and agree with iNow that challenging unsubstantiated opinions is a good thing, not something you should be chastised for. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if your opinion doesn't hold water it's not beyond reproach. I'll also say I've felt chastised for criticizing the opinions of others.

 

Reading over the thread though, sounds like I'm the only one who agrees with iNow.

You're not. I agree that unsupported opinions should be called out and challenged.

 

I think they should be done in a civil manner. What keeps frustrating me is that it seems *THIS* particular point keeps getting lost. Over and over again. As if the point about civility means I disagree on the point made.

 

Amazing.

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

Who's making things personal, now?

It's very difficult to point out someone's behavior without it seeming personal. You have a stellar posting record, your arguments are always well-researched and supported. And when it's been pointed out to you in-thread that you sometimes violate the forum rules to make your points, then more strenuously through the old infraction system, then in Private Messages requesting that you stop using these tactics, eventually we've had to go back to posting in-thread and pointing out exactly where you are in danger of hurting these forums with those tactics. In case you haven't noticed, several Staff members are trying in their various ways to reach you here. My way is to point out how you personally are out of line.

 

I find your comparison to my point about speaking out to support the establishment clause in our constitution in that other thread fatally strained, but that's your opinion and opinions are respected here (apparently, unless they are offered by me) so have at it.

For the last time, it's never been about your opinion, it's about the way you try to elevate your opinion over that of others. You call them "kid" to point out their lack of experience, you dismiss their arguments as "nonsense" and you claim that their opinions aren't "based in reality". You're subtle, you're good at it, and I think you're capable of winning arguments without those tactics. They chase people away.

 

This was not my intent, and I will now repeat my previous request. Please don't attribute to me things which you personally forecast MIGHT happen. I will add to it, please don't assert as fact what you personally think my motivations MIGHT have been for creating this thread.

Oh, please. Do you think everyone is that stupid?

 

If you would like to ask me to confirm something about my motivations, then do it do it. However, please don't state what they are without first confirming with me that your stance is accurate or reality-based.

Ah, reality-based. The reality of it is I don't like the way you want to quantify everyone's opinions. You and I share a lot of stances politically and socially, but I'm content with sharing my views with others, and feel no compulsion to change or make fun of what I disagree with.

 

I agree with mooeypoo, bring the old iNow back.

 

I'll present an unsubstantiated opinion and agree with iNow that challenging unsubstantiated opinions is a good thing, not something you should be chastised for. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if your opinion doesn't hold water it's not beyond reproach. I'll also say I've felt chastised for criticizing the opinions of others.

 

Reading over the thread though, sounds like I'm the only one who agrees with iNow.

Challenging opinions is one of the things discussion is all about. Rating those opinions based on substantiation so you can dismiss them is a sort of Appeal to Support fallacy. An opinion that opposes yours isn't necessarily wrong just because yours has more support.

[iNow]

You call them "kid" to point out their lack of experience,

I have not done this one single time... not once... since you brought it to my attention what seems like 2 years ago. I'm really excited to see how my changes in behavior make such an impression when I do, in fact, adjust how I post based on your feedback.

 

It's really incredibly rewarding to see that you've noticed.

 

 

Oh, please. Do you think everyone is that stupid?

I don't know what to tell you, Phi. That was NOT my motivation. All I can do is repeat this fact. If you don't accept it, then fine, but you're wrong.

 

 

Ah, reality-based. The reality of it is I don't like the way you want to quantify everyone's opinions.

I don't think this is fair. What I want is for people to no longer get a free pass for calling something their "opinion." I want to no longer be criticized when I have a problem with people saying "all opinions are equal" and assuming their position is on equal footing with those supported with facts and substance. Sure, talk about my style, but don't dismiss the challenge.

 

At it's core, this thread and this issue were never about "quantifying everyone's opinions." It was (and hopefully still is) about pushing for people to support them, and to get the Mod staff to stop saying all opinions are equal and should be respected. I respect peoples right to voice whatever opinion they want, but the opinion itself is not by default deserving of respect.

 

However, I will note that Mr.Skeptic and Swansont continue to raise a good point... we all seem to be talking about different types of opinions yet conflating those types as one. This isn't about liking chocolate versus vanilla. This is about discussing a topic, someone voicing disagreement, being challenged on that disagreement, and having the challenger be told that "all opinions are equal" even when no support or detail has been given.

 

My style is a separate issue. I take the point... yes, I can be a real prick... a total asshole... I get it... I've been that way my whole life. Good luck trying to change me. It ain't gonna happen. I say what I feel, and I say it how I want to... That's who I am. Sorry we can't all be friends and sing kumbaya. I'm a jerk sometimes. It's part of who I am... but that's not what I am seeking to discuss.

 

I am asking what other members think... I am asking if unsupported opinions should be deemed equal to well-supported ones. I think some good exchanges on that topic have already occurred, and I look forward to reading more.

 

My summary? Someone having an opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla is NOT nonsense, and does NOT require support. Someone having an opinion that evolution is false or global warming is a big conspiracy IS nonsense, and DOES require support. It seems a few posters agree with that.

 

 

 

What keeps frustrating me is that it seems *THIS* particular point keeps getting lost. Over and over again.

FWIW, I knew where you stood, and feel you were quite clear.

Edited March 22, 2010 by iNow

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have not done this one single time... not once... since you brought it to my attention. I'm really excited to see how my changes in behavior make such an impression when I do, in fact, adjust how I post based on your feedback.

 

It's really incredibly rewarding to see that you've noticed.

I love it when people argue that they're not being demeaning by being demeaning. Aside from chocolate and vanilla, irony is my favorite flavor.

 

My style is a separate issue. I take the point... yes, I can be a real prick... a total asshole... I get it... I've been that way my whole life. Good luck trying to change me. It ain't gonna happen. I say what I feel, and I say it how I want to... That's who I am. Sorry we can't all be friends and sing kumbaya. I'm a jerk sometimes. It's part of who I am... but that's not what I am seeking to discuss.

I think you have the self control to look at your post before hitting Submit Reply and think, "They probably won't like that, will they?"

 

My summary? Someone having an opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla is NOT nonsense. Someone having an opinion that evolution is false or global warming is a big conspiracy IS nonsense. It seems a few posters agree with that.

That doesn't mean you have to demean them for holding the opinion. In fact, that's the last thing you should do, because it puts them on the defensive and makes them less likely to accept your arguments.

 

Once you've demeaned a user, Alex's First Law comes into effect, and you will never change their mind. I have seen this happen over and over again. Calling someone an idiot just makes them seek every possible way of proving you wrong, rather than making them consider the flaws in their position.

 

Kindness is good strategy.

[Mr Skeptic]

your poll that was aimed at proving their opinions are worth less.

This was not my intent' date=' and I will now repeat my previous request. Please don't attribute to me things which you personally forecast MIGHT happen. I will add to it, please don't assert as fact what you personally think my motivations MIGHT have been for creating this thread.[/quote']Oh, please. Do you think everyone is that stupid?[/quote']I don't know what to tell you, Phi. That was NOT my motivation. All I can do is repeat this fact. If you don't accept it, then fine, but you're wrong.

 

What can I say iNow? All the evidence we have really does point to that conclusion. Of course it's not enough evidence to make a certain conclusion so to be fair we should word this as an opinion. You have a different opinion, but I must say we have substantiated why we hold this opinion and you have not. Therefore this opinion is better than yours Oh, and I'm pretty sure you have a lot of so called "subjective evidence" to support your opinion, but everyone knows real evidence is objective

Edited March 22, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[iNow]

Would anyone else care to tell me what I think and what my motivations are, or can we perhaps try to stay on the central thread topic?

 

I'd really appreciate if posters could avoid posting further speculations about what I'm thinking and why. That'd be real super if you could all do that. Yeah... Thanks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Also, condescension grates on people.

[iNow]

Also, condescension grates on people.

 

Supplementing this point, it grates on people when others try to tell them what they are thinking, and those people might wind up responding in a less than cordial manner if it continues despite clarifications being provided.

 

Further posts being on topic now would be nice... IMO.