Opinions in the Politics Section: What's Yours?

[swansont]

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.

 

How does an opinion not hold water?

[Mr Skeptic]

I was just trying to point out that sometimes well-supported opinions happen to be wrong.

[The Bear's Key]

I voted "no -- i.e. "opinions aren't equally valid".

 

And it seems clear iNow's not talking about real opinions, Mr Skeptic. For instance chocolate or favorite time of year. That would be a preference. But I think iNow's less concerned here with a factual inaccuracy, and more with someone continually replying to arguments with the same unsupported opinion -- even after its facutal basis gets debunked.

 

It's quite the copout of last resort to simply claim "we're both entitled to opinion" as some kind of rebuttal against what's a fact, not an opinion. If you're going to dispute facts it can't be done with opinions (the preferential/unsupported kind).

 

Example: member A can say, "true, the facts do reveal a consistency with your stance, however -- I can't really explain why -- but I still disagree and feel there's a hidden or different reason we're not seeing at the moment."

 

But if member A instead replied something like: "no, they're incompetent".

 

And member B revealed a list of items showing otherwise, a long history of ____ being reliably competent...

 

Then member A replies: "oh so they're a bunch of saints? Right, we all need to open the floodgates to (insert scary whatever here)".

 

Member B counters: "And yet the list I posted defies that. In addition, here's more data (links/quotes)"

 

Reply by member A: "we all know if this happens it'll end up doing ____. They lack direct motivation so end up being incompetent, no surprise there really".

 

Frustration creep beginning?

 

Especially when you know a similar talking point's circling the nation in the form of systematically distributed propaganda (about "incompetent" whatever). You'd rather talk substance, not enter a rehash of a complaint not quite based on reality.

 

Can I talk to you, and not the (misinformed/dishonest) commentator or website you heard that from?

 

Anyway...

 

Unsupported opinions have a less solid foundation on which to overturn the argument. In fact, they have no solid ground or basis whatsoever. And I think iNow's point of contention is where a member keeps posting such an opinion in response to most posts of well-supported arguments based on facts (i.e. not vs opinion) down the line.

 

So if that's the case, I'd recommend to iNow the same as a mod had earlier: to report the offending post, if you're bothered that much by a person's continual intellectual dishonesty and/or bypassing your supported arguments repeatedly with unsupported opinions. The mods do act on such instances of blatant elusive maneuverings. Just a look through the infractions of Banned/Suspended Users...

 

 

• ____ has accumulated enough infraction points for....Trolling, including but not limited to simple repetition of arguments and refusal to address points brought up, as well as strawman arguments.
  

 

 

• ____ has been banned for....Repeatedly posting the same errors, at length, after being shown why they were errors (i.e. trolling/refusal to acknowledge cited information).
  

 

 

• ____ temporarily suspended for infractions resulting from persistent logical fallacies, etc.
  

 

 

• ____ has been permanently banned due to persistent fallacious arguments and general intellectual dishonesty.
   
  And there was much rejoicing.
  

 

 

• ____ has continued to post the same pet theory after having it debunked, against the requests of Staff, and so has been permanently banned due to repeated inconsistencies with the purpose of this forum.
  

 

 

• ____ has been automatically suspended for three days after repeated rules violations, including refusal to cite sources and trolling.
  

 

 

• ____ has been banned for....and being a fountain of misinformation on a number of topics.
  

 

 

What can I say iNow? All the evidence we have really does point to that conclusion.

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

This was not my intent

A bit unfair, Mr Skeptic. iNow didn't claim the "worth less" in the OP, and clearly stated he didn't mean worthless. Phi for All just recently stepped in as moderator to remind me not to assume the manner by which someone posted, yet here it the same thing occurring vs iNow.

 

Yes, maybe his attitude could be a wee more tactful, but I see no reason to assign motives or declare his intentions from just the OP and poll.

 

 

Also, for the record, I think post #37 missed something by quoting iNow: that his reply to Pangloss seemed intended to be friendly. "Join the chorus" was in reference to the song or whatever iNow linked to. And was nothing personal, just seemed to lament that Pangloss apparently viewed it as "mostly harmless" or non-existent threat.

 

Which is a legitimate feeling by Pangloss, and he can't be shown wrong unless he made predictions or tried using it as a factual base -- or was proven drastically wrong by future events.

[iNow]

In your defense, you have not changed, it has been your style/method, going back years to my knowledge and this sudden shift in acceptance, is puzzling, not justifiable or warranted after years of precedence....

you're also an extremely intelligent, very resourceful debater.

<...>

iNow, the one whose methods of 'pwning' an irrational argument were known to be witty, resourceful, full of the no-question links and totally pseudoscience-crushing.

I'd have to agree with that. iNow has convinced me of one notable thing, the truth of evolution

I understand your position, and I acknowledge that it seems silly to not engage in discussion on a discussion board.

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 have a stellar posting record, your arguments are always well-researched and supported.

And it seems clear iNow's not talking about real opinions, Mr Skeptic. For instance chocolate or favorite time of year. That would be a preference. But I think iNow's less concerned here with a factual inaccuracy, and more with someone continually replying to arguments with the same unsupported opinion -- even after its factual basis gets debunked.

 

It's quite the copout of last resort to simply claim "we're both entitled to opinion" as some kind of rebuttal against what's a fact, not an opinion. If you're going to dispute facts it can't be done with opinions (the preferential/unsupported kind).

<...>

I think iNow's point of contention is where a member keeps posting such an opinion in response to most posts of well-supported arguments based on facts (i.e. not vs opinion) down the line.

<...>

A bit unfair, Mr Skeptic. iNow didn't claim the "worth less" in the OP, and clearly stated he didn't mean worthless. Phi for All just recently stepped in as moderator to remind me not to assume the manner by which someone posted, yet here it the same thing occurring vs iNow.

<...>

Also, for the record, I think post #37 missed something by quoting iNow: that his reply to Pangloss seemed intended to be friendly. "Join the chorus" was in reference to the song or whatever iNow linked to. And was nothing personal, just seemed to lament that Pangloss apparently viewed it as "mostly harmless" or non-existent threat.

I just want to thank everyone for the comments above.

[mooeypoo]

May I ask, iNow, seeing as it seems I'm not the only one noticing this change in your debate methodologies -- what happened? I'm just curious.

[padren]

I think it would help if we could distill down the exact behaviors involving opinions that cause concern and the desired remedies - I like The Bear's Key's example and I think it fits, but we won't get anywhere if we don't agree on what scope we are talking about.

 

 

1) An opinion is stated to emphasize point of view so people are aware of where they are coming from, for better or worse:

I would consider this the most honest and reasonable reason to share an opinion - if you are in a debate about the death penalty and someone explains their aunt was murdered and the guy who was executed for the crime was later found innocent then regardless of the intensity their experience is nothing but anecdotal and carries very little weight... but it may explain why they feel the way they feel about the topic, and why they aren't likely to budge. It would be easy to jump on them for all kinds of "Appeal to..." fallacies but often that isn't why they are sharing it - they just want you to know where they are coming from.

 

2) If they are saying that your argument is invalid and using their opinion as a basis (lets say in the above example, they think your experience is too limited to weigh as much as theirs) then it's important to point out their conclusions are irrelevant as opposed to wrong. There's no need to say "So we should all just go with what you believe then just because you think your experience is more personal?" when you can simply say "For every person who draws your conclusion for your experience, there are others who had similar ones that drew different ones - and neither contribute objective facts to the debate."

 

3) They are disrupting a debate by trying to use their opinion as a "sacred cow" knowing full well it won't help them win but will tick off someone else. Since this is a type of trolling, responding in kind can only exasperate the situation. They need to be called on it, and I think people do a good job of this.

 

 

Anyway, my point is there are many ways that opinions can come up in a debate, and we should be pretty clear about (1) The context it comes up in and (2) what we feel needs to be done differently in the future. If we can clarify this it'll give us something to talk about other than the general abstract facets of the topic.

[toastywombel]

iNow, I think that unsupported opinions should be available to view as equally as supported opinions are. It is really up to the reader if they decide what opinion has more value.

 

If the reader accepts the supported opinion that is great, and I think in most cases the reader will.

If the reader accepts the unsupported opinion, well you can't fix stupid.

 

I don't think that SFN should get into the business of censoring unsupported opinions though, leave it up to the reader to decide.

 

And as always I think it is good to be kind, avoid personal attacks, and overwhelm the opposing view with facts supporting your views. I have not always been perfect at doing this, but none of us are.

 

Wombel Method.

[StringJunky]

When an opinion based discussion reaches impasse and is composed of a volley of repeated assertions it's time to stop because after that it can only become emotional...as evidenced many times.

 

The easiest thing to do if someone is steadfastly not seeing it your way is to desist from saying any more...the conversation has reached it's conclusion...and everyone, readers included, takes from it what they will.

 

In this type of discussion I think we need to get rid of this idea of 'winning' an argument and see it more as an exchange of views.

 

Must every conversation here be so adversarial and a battle of wits?

 

I think a well supported opinion does carry more weight but who or what is the arbiter? Because there isn't one it shouldn't be participated in from a point scoring competitive perspective.

[Severian]

Let's be honest here - iNow is completely useless at debate anyway. His only contribution to debates I ever see is the same old comment "This message is hidden because iNow is on your ignore list."

 

[john5746]

I agree with iNow in general that supported opinions have more weight. As others have said, I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated as such. One could ask for evidence or ask for a rebuke of evidence provided. The last think I would like to see is a link war.

 

In my experience, iNow provides a great example in regards to providing evidence and support for claims.

[Mr Skeptic]

In my experience, iNow provides a great example in regards to providing evidence and support for claims.

 

This is true but I think he sometimes overestimates the evidence he provides, and from there can be overly demanding.

[Phi for All]

The real question here is whether a poll that rates the equality of opinions is either rationally valuable or logically sound. I think it will make it too easy for anyone to point to this poll and claim that they have provided more support for their argument and therefore their opinion is the better one. I don't see this as being a good thing for SFN in general. I think it diminishes the potential of many members by scaring them away or keeping them from posting their opinions.

 

And as has been mentioned, it is entirely possible for an argument to be well-supported yet still be wrong. I contend that it is fallacious to appeal to support as a way to quantify the equality of opinions.

[JohnB]

To a degree I have to agree with iNows position. A supported position is better than an unsupported position. However, viewing things rationally, the difference is (sort of) slight.

 

If there were in fact definitive sources that could be used as convincing proof in a political argument or debate, then logically after 300 years or so of such debate we would all be mostly on the same side by now.

 

We aren't. This is due to the truth that there are facts and there is the interpretation of the facts. Nation A went to war with Nation B in 1612 might be the fact. That the leaders of Nation A said it was a "Holy War" might be a fact. That Nation A had just had 3 bad crop years and the people were extremely hungry might also be a fact. In the interpretation though, was it a "Holy War", or a war for more cropland? Both arguments could be quite well supported and seem equally valid.

 

Politics, unlike the hard sciences is always based on the interpretation of facts rather than the facts themselves. That's just how people are, wishing them to be different is futile. There are people out there who think that Soviet style Communism was great. No amount of "facts" will change their minds because they will always have some excuse or other. I happen to think that they are idiots, but I also accept that that is their opinion and they are entitled to it.

 

Once a debate descends from debate to argument, then it is probably a lost cause. I read years ago and firmly believe this to be true "You can never win an argument, you can only convince yourself that you are more right." In this respect it is the duty of each member here to attempt to prevent that descent.

 

I think we also need to be mindful of what is classified as "support" in a non hard science setting. Going back to ice cream;

Member A : My opinion is that chocolate is better than vanilla because I like it more.

Member B : Firstly, since that is you personal preference, that is only anecdotal evidence and is therefore irrelevent.

Secondly. These papers [link], [link], [link] are all peer reviewed and show that more people think vanilla is better. Therefore you are wrong to have that opinion, as I've just shown.

 

A passing reader or new member would be very cautious about treading into such waters and we would lose the insights of those people. Politics isn't about logic, it's about life experiences. People hold the opinions they do because of what they have seen and experienced in their lives. To expect too much as "support" in this area is to essentially tell someone that their life experiences are not valued. They may not have "support", just experience.

 

We must make plain to all passing readers and new members that we do indeed value their experience as much as their knowledge.

 

As a simple example. It is my firm opinion that most if not all of the over educated, University trained morons that design cars would gain immense benefit from spending 6 months in a service bay working on cars. I can't produce any supporting evidence for this except my experiences with absolutely p*ss poor engine bay design.

 

Today I had to unship the battery just to change a headlight bulb. What should be a quick job becomes an operation. I've seen cars where you have to remove the entire air conditioning system to change the spark plugs. While I could probably provide documented proof of poor deign to supplement my "anecdotal" evidence, that is actually irrelevent. (They are just the facts)

 

My opinion that they would benefit from getting their hands dirty is based on my experience, which tells me that if they actually worked with the problems first hand, they would be more likely to attempt to avoid them. But unless and until someone not only tries it (I think Mazda does) but also gets a paper written about it, then I have no "supporting" evidence.

 

Put bluntly, who do you believe? A "study" that says Vehicle A is cheap to run and maintain, or your local mechanic who says it's unreliable, a cow to work on and is expensive to repair. I know which way I would go.

 

It's a value judgement as to whether a "unsupported" opinion is worth less than a "supported" one.

[swansont]

To a degree I have to agree with iNows position. A supported position is better than an unsupported position. However, viewing things rationally, the difference is (sort of) slight.

 

If there were in fact definitive sources that could be used as convincing proof in a political argument or debate, then logically after 300 years or so of such debate we would all be mostly on the same side by now.

 

We aren't. This is due to the truth that there are facts and there is the interpretation of the facts. Nation A went to war with Nation B in 1612 might be the fact. That the leaders of Nation A said it was a "Holy War" might be a fact. That Nation A had just had 3 bad crop years and the people were extremely hungry might also be a fact. In the interpretation though, was it a "Holy War", or a war for more cropland? Both arguments could be quite well supported and seem equally valid.

 

I think this isn't an example of arguing an opinion. The reason some country went to war may be complicated and lost to the entropy of history, but somebody made a decision to go to war. Assuming it was not a random decision, there were reasons. We just may not be able to directly ascertain what they were, e.g. with a memo. So one has to make inferences and support them.

 

And I'll reiterate my view that a lot of what gets argued in politics falls into this category. And in these case, one should not be able to hide behind "that's my opinion," if it's not a real opinion being discussed.

 

Several posts back there was a mention of opinion vs belief, and we are distinguishing these from facts. Opinions and beliefs are both personally held, and what distinguishes them from facts is whether or not another person should see the viewpoint as verifiably true.

 

Politics, unlike the hard sciences is always based on the interpretation of facts rather than the facts themselves. That's just how people are, wishing them to be different is futile. There are people out there who think that Soviet style Communism was great. No amount of "facts" will change their minds because they will always have some excuse or other. I happen to think that they are idiots, but I also accept that that is their opinion and they are entitled to it.

 

Once a debate descends from debate to argument, then it is probably a lost cause. I read years ago and firmly believe this to be true "You can never win an argument, you can only convince yourself that you are more right." In this respect it is the duty of each member here to attempt to prevent that descent.

 

I think we also need to be mindful of what is classified as "support" in a non hard science setting. Going back to ice cream;

Member A : My opinion is that chocolate is better than vanilla because I like it more.

Member B : Firstly, since that is you personal preference, that is only anecdotal evidence and is therefore irrelevent.

Secondly. These papers [link], [link], [link] are all peer reviewed and show that more people think vanilla is better. Therefore you are wrong to have that opinion, as I've just shown.

 

Case in point. Is "chocolate is better than vanilla" being presented as a verifiable fact, with which someone else is compelled to agree, or is it that "I like chocolate better than vanilla" has merely been poorly worded? That's the distinction that tells you if it an opinion. As for "more people think vanilla is better," that's appeal to popularity which is a logical fallacy and as such should never be a part of such a discussion.

 

People who think that Soviet style Communism was great are entitled to that opinion. One may think they are idiots, but decorum would/should prevent a person from stating that here.

[Peron]

Opinions that are baseless and "fact-less" (like the tea party movement) should be thrown out the window.

[ParanoiA]

Is it possible to agree with everyone here?

 

iNow is exactly right, a supported opinion is certainly of greater value than an unsupported one, where applicable. And most of the exceptions I've seen posted here sound exactly right to me as well.

 

In terms of politics, we're generally arguing preferences and pointing out inconsistencies even though some of us make believe we've found absolute, objective truth.

 

Ridicule is a powerful tool, but I think it can even be used with some measure of respect. Venomous ridicule, not so much.

 

 

 

I'll admit it, I left some time ago after an exchange with iNow that caused a thread edit, which I felt was instigated by his overly emotional and insulting attitude. Then I resented him for it as I struggled to find a new political forum home. But, I needed to accept my choices as my choices, and to stop pretending as if iNow did this to me. That's victim psychology, and I'm no victim.

 

I think it's important to remember what we are communicating. When we ridicule people, we are playing to our "base"; to the private cheers of our like minded peers. A betrayal to the predicated sincere engagement between posters. It's like being promised company on deck, only to find yourself isolated on the plank. It's self serving ego bullshit that ought to be embarassing considering how utterly shallow and pretentious it generally is.

 

So, yeah, I got to stop doing that.

 

iNow, I think it would do some good to take responsibility for your choices. "That's how I am" is romanticizing yourself. I suspect a personal admiration for your own methods. They're great for high fives from the fans, but they're trasparently cheap in the company of intellectual equals. So ask yourself, which is more important to you? Rock star or respected peer?

 

Please don't take this as a judgement, as I'm guilty of all of the above. But I'm trying to break the illusion that there's merit to it. "I'm an asshole" was my copout all through my twenties - my wife remembers my I'm-an-asshole speech when we first met and we laugh about it. It was a sorry defense. It was a lie.

[iNow]

I appreciate your post, ParanoiA, and am sorry for my role in driving you away. I enjoy the fight. I love to spar, both physically and rhetorically. I always considered you a sparring partner... a sparring friend... not a sparring opponent. I apologize if some of my responses to you in the past ignored that central understanding, and if I went straight for the jugular with a serrated knife or rusty spoon with no concern or regard for the downstream impact on our interactions.

 

Sometimes I just enjoy the kill... pure and simple... and that's where my conceding being a prick sometimes comes in. It really depends on the day... what's going on at work... what's happening with my girlfriend... which of my loved ones I just had to bury... you know... that all impacts my tone and style when posting.

 

As for your question about rock star versus respected peer, I haven't yet decided that the two are mutually exclusive. When you get right down to it, I want to be the one which convinces more people of my stance and corrects the flaws in my own stance when appropriate. I'm inclined to believe that there is room for both when doing so.

[bascule]

It seems as if there's been an overnight shift in forum policy:

 

Let's review this thread and see if we can determine why 27 of you found the original poster's argument so compelling that you just had to vote in agreement.

 

Unsupported allegation.

[...]

Unsupported allegation.

[...]

Unsupported allegation.

[...]

Unsupported allegation.

 

It would seem that Pangloss is now challenging people's opinions, rather than giving carte blanche, and demanding they support their allegations.

 

To this I say bravo, Pangloss, and may you enforce this policy unilaterally, demanding facts from all, liberal and conservative alike, and not just accepting unsubstantiated opinions.

 

I like this a lot more than your previous "anyone can say anything they want as long as it's their opinion, even if it contradicts the facts" policy.

[Pangloss]

I never once said that people shouldn't challenge other people's opinions. Also, you stated your opinion as fact, and even expressed outrage when people didn't agree that it was a fact. That's a whole different ballgame.

 

And not once during that response have I used ad-hominem in any way, though you have in response, and regularly do so, to me.