In my opinion, this thread sucks

[enemy anemone]

"everyone is entitled to an opinion."

the more I hear this, the less sense it makes. it actually infuriates me and I don't know why. is everyone really *entitled* to an opinion? what does this even mean? does it seem like only closed-minded people use this phrase to stop any actual discussion? yes? no? maybe? sometimes? I am entitled to my opinion?

[Vlad!]

I'm willing to accept the proposition that everyone is entitled to an opinion. After all, what would it be like if that weren't true? That only certain people could have an opinion? That certain opinions would be branded as wrong and people weren't allowed to have them?

I don't agree with the thought which usually follows, which is "all opinions are equally valid/true". Yes, it is true that this is your opinion, and yes, it is valid for you to have an opinion, but it's still possible that your opinion is stupid.

This is often aired when talking about something like music or movies. Someone says "I like X" and someone else says "X sucks". Even if the second person gives a lot of well-thought-out reasons for why X sucks, liking X is still a viable and valid opinion.

Now, where I do get annoyed with this statement is when debating fact. That which we consider fact can be notoriously tenuous and ephemeral, as anybody who's ever listened to and old married couple talk about the past certainly knows. There are certain things, whether dealing with the deep, pressing questions of life or about whose fault it was that my parents got lost on the way to a friend's house when they were in college, that we may never know the answer to, and where opinion and conjecture are the best we can muster. Even in this realm I do think that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but hiding behind this entitlement as an excuse to not talk about the issue is frustrating when the other party does want to talk about it.

Still, despite the frustrations inherent with others being allowed to have opinions that disagree with mine (the nerve), I'd rather have that than the opposite, where someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have my opinion because in their judgment it's too stupid or wrong to be had.

But that's just my opinion

[enemy anemone]

I don't disagree with the basic idea behind it. I think people are free to think what they want. I might secretly think that what they think is stupid, but I am also free to think what I want. but I don't think that I would *say* this, because it gets nowhere and is obnoxious. they don't need my permission to think what they want, so I'm not going to be fake-magnanimous and say "you are free to think what you want". anyway, saying "you are free to think what you want" seems to be more of a dismissal than magnanimity, real or fake.

the "entitled to an opinion" phrase makes me think of planting a flag in a bit of ground and claiming it for one's own. like if I do this, you can't come over here. you can't mess with the flag or the bit of ground. it is mine; I am entitled to it. because I said so. and I think this is ridiculous. I think that most of the time when people do this, the ground is not and cannot be theirs, or there is actually no ground. the ground is an invention so they can plant a flag somewhere and call it theirs and say other people can't do anything about it except plant their own flags in their own made-up ground. I dunno.

[murlough23]

I see it this way. You are allowed to have an opinion. You are allowed to express that opinion. But by expressing your opinion, you forfeit your right to complain when others express disagreement with said opinion. If you can't handle the disagreement and the debate that will likely ensue, then keep yer trap shut. If you can handle it, then bring it on!

[Vlad!]

On the other hand, some people (including me, and possibly other people involved in this discussion...) when expressing a dissenting opinion can come across as saying "your opinion is invalid" or "you are not allowed to have that opinion".

(For example, if I say "I like band X" and someone replies with "band X sucks", it sounds like they're telling me that my opinion is wrong and I shouldn't actually like band X.)

In that case, a reminder that I am entitled to my own opinion might be in order.

[murlough23]

Judgments of aesthetic value or like/dislike are inherently subjective in most cases. I assume it is understood that when I say something is awesome or that it sucks or whatever, that this is not taken as a Gospel truth that everyone must believe... or else! It gets tedious to have to make that disclaimer all the time that it is a statement of opinion, when that much is obvious. I will try to cite reasons for feeling that way in most cases, and I may support my position passionately, but this is not the same thing as saying "You are a complete idiot for not agreeing with me". It is frustrating when people show no attempt to back up an opposing opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't think they have a right to it - I'd just like to see them show their work, as it were.

[Vlad!]

It can be very hard for someone to tell whether, when you (or I, or anyone else; I'm not specifically picking on you) say "X sucks", you are saying "it is my opinion that X sucks" or "X objectively sucks and you also suck for liking them". Yes, it seems odd to qualify something that is obviously your opinion with "I think" or "in my opinion", but in my experience you will find that a lot of the people you used to just rub the wrong way are now much more likely to pay attention to what you're saying.

I've been part of plenty of debates which are essentially just people asserting their own opinions at one-another. When these opinions are obviously qualified as such, it becomes a lot easier to avoid these pointless debates and get on to the part that you and I are both interested in, which is the why.

On that topic, however, I also want to note that not everybody will have a "why" that's as well thought out as you are looking for. I suspect that when I talk about music or movies, people who actually understand these things laugh about the same way I laugh when I listen to two non-technical people try to talk about computer problems. One thing that can be hard to accept is that someone who has clearly put no thought into an opinion is still as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours. Saying that people can't air their opinions if they're not willing to back them up implicitly makes you the arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable rationalization of the opinion in question. I hate listening to irrational and ill-conceived opinions, but I hate even more the idea that I'm not allowed to have or state an opinion because someone else considers it to be irrational or ill-conceived.

[murlough23]

It can be very hard for someone to tell whether, when you (or I, or anyone else; I'm not specifically picking on you) say "X sucks", you are saying "it is my opinion that X sucks" or "X objectively sucks and you also suck for liking them". Yes, it seems odd to qualify something that is obviously your opinion with "I think" or "in my opinion", but in my experience you will find that a lot of the people you used to just rub the wrong way are now much more likely to pay attention to what you're saying.

I've learned to give folks the benefit of the doubt and be forthcoming with this explanation when I don't know them well. But when I'm used to this sort of discussion with people and they're still treating me like I'm passing my opinion off as fact when I'm not, that can get tiresome. (This sort of situation plays out at Epinions sometimes, when I get flamed for writing a negative review. Did they not notice the name of the website?)

I've been part of plenty of debates which are essentially just people asserting their own opinions at one-another. When these opinions are obviously qualified as such, it becomes a lot easier to avoid these pointless debates and get on to the part that you and I are both interested in, which is the why.

When people are just throwing conflicting opinions at one another with no attempt to support them with evidence, I agree that this is tiring. But usually one or both parties will see the need at that point to start supporting their statements with some sort of reasoning. The desire to compel the other person to understand usually prompts that much. This, of course, doesn't prevent them from erroneously passing off their opinion as fact. However, facts may be used in the supporting statements to bolster the conclusions that they came to. That's usually where the stronger arguments lie.

And sure, stating "that's just my opinion" can sidestep a lot of those problems, because others will just go "whatever, I don't feel that way" and be less likely to respond, I guess. Still, if someone feels so radically different on an issue that I'm particularly passionate about, I'm still going to want to ask why. Not in an accusatory manner (though it can come across this way if I'm not helpful), just in a curious one.

On that topic, however, I also want to note that not everybody will have a "why" that's as well thought out as you are looking for.

Exactly. A lot of these folks don't think these things through until confronted with the question of "why". Some will attempt to think it through when asked, and some will end up supporting their positions quite well. Others will get defensive and just say "I like it because I like it, leave me alone!" OK, that's your right, but it's disheartening when people act like it's taxing to have to think about their reasons. More so when it's not about music/art, but instead something like politics or theology. You don't have to come out agreeing with me in the end. Just show some thought. It's not that hard.

I suspect that when I talk about music or movies, people who actually understand these things laugh about the same way I laugh when I listen to two non-technical people try to talk about computer problems.

No doubt. Despite working with computers, I'm still quite illiterate when it comes to operating systems and hardware and such. Expressing my opinions in these areas often leads to a better understanding of things that I did not previously understand. And it's been proven to me several times over that Max/Linux/what-have-you possess superior computing qualities to my rusty PC. I've accepted this. I still use PCs. I have my reasons for doing this, and others may disagree, but we can talk through the reasoning and there still ends up being a difference between what performs best and what suits my particular needs best. Even if I disagree at the end, I'm thankful for the knowledge that I've gained.

One thing that can be hard to accept is that someone who has clearly put no thought into an opinion is still as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours. Saying that people can't air their opinions if they're not willing to back them up implicitly makes you the arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable rationalization of the opinion in question.

What I'm saying is, don't put yourself out there by taking a position and then act like you're being persecuted when people ask you to explain a position that they don't understand. If you didn't want to explain it, you should have thought about that before bringing it up in the first place. I can't say that you are "not allowed" to do this, but I can say that it is annoying. (I understand that it is also annoying when you feel like people are on the offensive. There's a difference between seeking to understand and seeking to ridicule.) I just want people to think more deeply, even if they don't come out on the same side as me. Hey, maybe coming out on the other side will get me to think more. It happens a lot, actually.

Bottom line: You're stating an opinion in a public forum. Those who disagree are entitled to express their opinions as well. At the very least, if you really don't want to talk about it, just say "let's agree to disagree" and move on.

I hate listening to irrational and ill-conceived opinions, but I hate even more the idea that I'm not allowed to have or state an opinion because someone else considers it to be irrational or ill-conceived.

I think there's a difference here between having reasons for your views which others consider to be irrational reasons, and not being able to supply reasons at all. Not thinking about something is, by definition, irrational. You're just deciding something willy-nilly based on feelings or some other intangible thing.* Having thought it through, but not being able/willing to express those thoughts, just begs the question of why you brought it up in the first place. You're allowed to be as irrational as you want, I guess. Just don't be surprised when people call you on it.

(* I should put a footnote here which makes the admission that my reaction to things like music or movies is often based on "feelings". Sometimes it takes a discussion to get to the bottom of this and realize that my response was more emotional than intellectual. Realizing this means it makes a lot more sense to me why others, with their own feelings and experiences, did not respond the same way. So I'm not saying it's ridiculous and invalid to have feelings determine one's personal tastes more than thoughts. But it can be good to get a person to realize the difference between this and more of an academic analysis. Also, feelings are an extremely precarious basis for such things as political/theological beliefs.)

[murlough23]

To schil's original point: "You are entitled to your own opinion" often seems annoying and nonsensical, yes. For me it depends on the tone. (Which is hard to discern when you're reading it on the Internet.) It can, and often does, get used in a dismissive way, as if to say, "Well, that's just your opinion", implying that this makes it less valid and that the person feels some contempt toward that viewpoint. But I think it can also be used as a qualifier - not to give the person a permission that isn't yours to give, but to say, "I recognize that we feel differently on the subject, and I respect your right to express your viewpoint." In other words, acknowledging that the permission isn't yours to give, but that it belongs to the person inherently. It can be helpful or hurtful, depending on the context.

[Vlad!]

I can sort of sympathize with people who object to negative reviews of things they like, just because for a long time some people have tried to claim that reviews represent objective truth as much as subjective opinion. And while it's certainly the case that Roger Ebert's review does (and should!) carry more weight than my blurb on the Film board, in the end a review is just an opinion with reasons (or possibly just more opinions, depending on the skill of the reviewer) to back it up. So I think we're agreed on this, but at the same time I can see why a review is a bit different from what this thread was originally talking about in this regard.

One of the things I've noticed about myself is that I tend to assume someone is making an absolute statement if there isn't any indication saying otherwise. This is especially true when this person is attempting to argue his or her view--it comes across as an attempt to force that opinion on me, whether that was the actual intent or not. Sometimes I'm glad to go toe-to-toe and argue it out, but sometimes I just want the chance to state my opinion for the record and not have to justify it to someone else's satisfaction.

[bloop]

I'm thinking of another food metaphor:

"This steak tastes bad" is entirely subjective.  I could taste the same steak and think it's great.  Such statements aren't too useful at revealing anything other than the particular tastes of the taster.

"This steak is poorly-made" can be supported or refuted, and isn't as subjective in nature as the simple, gut-level reaction that is above, thus, I find it far more useful in discussion.

[murlough23]

I can sort of sympathize with people who object to negative reviews of things they like, just because for a long time some people have tried to claim that reviews represent objective truth as much as subjective opinion.

The people claiming it represents objective truth are idiots. I don't want to be persecuted for their idiocy (or have to make redundant statements) when I'm just expressing my opinion. Maybe this explains why I changed my Epinions profile blurb (which appears beneath my avatar on all reviews) to read "Just add an implicit 'in my humble opinion' to every sentence I write." (Though I guess this doesn't apply to sentences that actually do state facts. "Michael Jackson passed away in June 2009... in my humble opinion.")

And while it's certainly the case that Roger Ebert's review does (and should!) carry more weight than my blurb on the Film board, in the end a review is just an opinion with reasons (or possibly just more opinions, depending on the skill of the reviewer) to back it up.

It's a bit of both. The opinions are reasons that are convincing to the reviewer. I think that after reading enough of these, one learns that the reviewer is not trying to say, "You must think the same way I do about this", but rather just trying to show you how they got from premise A to conclusion B. Sometimes I will reason things out as I am writing a review, just to make sure I've fully thought out for myself why I feel a certain way about the thing that I am reviewing. (Especially for things where I'm on the fence and can't seem to put my finger on why I'm not more excited about it.)

So I think we're agreed on this, but at the same time I can see why a review is a bit different from what this thread was originally talking about in this regard.

In some sense, yes. But I am not Roger Ebert, and do not expect or want to be regarded on the same plane as him. Ebert reviews films for a living. I review music for a hobby. The fact that my words come from me should carry no extra weight - that should only matter if you've read other things I've written and/or find that we have similar tastes and generally find that you line up with my instincts - that gives you a better chance of liking something I liked. For people whose instincts run the opposite way, maybe a review of something I dislike may help to turn them on to it.

In other words, just because I've got an established system for expressing my thoughts rather than just posting random blurbs in random places, doesn't make me an expert. I am still just expressing an opinion. Of course I'm trying to show that I've thought it through, but if you assume I'm coming across like a know-it-all who is imparting the sole truth of the universe to you, then well, that's your bad.

One of the things I've noticed about myself is that I tend to assume someone is making an absolute statement if there isn't any indication saying otherwise.

Well, stop that.  In the interest of giving the person the benefit of the doubt when it could go either way, it might be best to not make assumptions which lead to you thinking the other person is being arrogant.

This is especially true when this person is attempting to argue his or her view--it comes across as an attempt to force that opinion on me, whether that was the actual intent or not.

I'm understanding more and more why  get myself into so much trouble. An attempt to show my reasoning and support the view that I've stated often comes across as combative - an "argument" in the sense of being argumentative rather than in the sense of an input into a function - er, I mean the sense of simply presenting your case for something. I've been trying to figure out ways to soften this so that I can clearly get my point across without the appearance of being on the offensive. (Using more smilies? There must be a more effective way to communicate this.) I don't want to force anything on anybody - I just want to be understood. You can understand me and still disagree with me. I expect that a lot of people will.

Sometimes I'm glad to go toe-to-toe and argue it out, but sometimes I just want the chance to state my opinion for the record and not have to justify it to someone else's satisfaction.

Some people are never satisfied. But I'd say at least make the first attempt to explain your position. That doesn't have to mean putting up with an endless conversation on the issue (I know those can get tedious.) Just don't start what you're not willing to see through.

Alternatively, if you feel strongly that you should be able to state something without having to back it up when asked for your reasons, you can always just not respond to the follow-up questions. (Personally, when asked a question, I like to answer it, but that might just be me.)

These aren't hard and fast "rules", of coruse - I'm just trying to figure out a reasonable etiquette for these kinds of situations.

[Vlad!]

"This steak is poorly-made" can be supported or refuted, and isn't as subjective in nature as the simple, gut-level reaction that is above, thus, I find it far more useful in discussion.

Well, to take this metaphor and run with it...

There's a certain point at which, yes, you can say with authority that a steak is poorly made. For instance, if it's served raw or resembles a charcoal briquette, I think most people would agree that it has been poorly made. And certainly you could point out that it is not a choice cut, to which few could argue given that the choiceness of various cuts of meat is established as much by metric as by opinion.

However, opinion still plays into it. On Friday, we get free bagels. We have a bagel-toasting machine that basically resembles the sub toaster at Quizno's: it has a metal conveyor belt that runs the bagel under a heating element. The "temperature" control actually controls the speed of the conveyor belt. However, despite the fact that the machine can toast three or four bagels at once, some people like their bagels just lightly toasted while others like them charred. As a member of the "lightly toasted" camp, when I see someone's bagel coming out black and smoking, I wonder why someone would waste a perfectly good bagel like that. But I'm sure the owner of that bagel wonders why I would eat an under-toasted bagel.

Or to go back to the steak metaphor, my mom likes steak rare, while my dad likes steak well-done. If it has any pink in it at all, my dad will send it back. If it has too little pink, my mom will send it back. I, cementing my family's reputation as difficult eaters, don't eat red meat at all--to me, any steak is poorly made because it's not a chicken.

Thus, while there are certain fundamental elements we can all (or mostly all) agree on, there is still plenty of space for opinion.

[murlough23]

I'm thinking of another food metaphor:

"This steak tastes bad" is entirely subjective.  I could taste the same steak and think it's great.  Such statements aren't too useful at revealing anything other than the particular tastes of the taster.

"This steak is poorly-made" can be supported or refuted, and isn't as subjective in nature as the simple, gut-level reaction that is above, thus, I find it far more useful in discussion.

I understand where you're going to come from here. It's helpful to understand what it takes to make a good steak. It's also helpful to understand that not everybody enjoys a good steak. If you don't, it's fine to say you tried the steak and didn't like it. However, if good steaks just aren't your thing, you might not want to make a habit of criticizing said steakhouse at every available opportunity.

This is a learning process for me - weeding out the stuff that's truly poorly made from the stuff where I can see that it's well-made but I just cannot bring myself to like it no matter how many times I try.

I, cementing my family's reputation as difficult eaters, don't eat red meat at all--to me, any steak is poorly made because it's not a chicken.

This indicates to me that you're just not in a position to judge which steaks are good and which ones are not. You just don't like steaks. Which is fine. I'm not a big fan of them, either. But I don't go to steakhouses, order steaks, and then tell them they're doing it wrong. When invited to a steakhouse by friends who say I should give it a try, I'll politely decline and say it's not my thing, but I won't slag the steakhouse for making the thing that they specialize in. If I liked steaks and they always burned their steaks, that would of course be another story.

[Vlad!]

The people claiming it represents objective truth are idiots, in my opinion.

Fixed

Well, stop that.   In the interest of giving the person the benefit of the doubt when it could go either way, it might be best to not make assumptions which lead to you thinking the other person is being arrogant.

I try, believe me. I was explaining my knee-jerk reaction, not my considered reaction. If I take time to think about it, I understand that it's not one person trying to dictate what I should believe. But I have to take that time, and I'm not always good about doing that.

I've been trying to figure out ways to soften this so that I can clearly get my point across without the appearance of being on the offensive. (Using more smilies? There must be a more effective way to communicate this.)

Just make it clear. As annoying as it is, write "I feel..." or "I think..." or "This is why, in my opinion, ....". Sprinkle these in there, and you'll achieve your stated objective.

[murlough23]

Fixed

Touche.

I try, believe me. I was explaining my knee-jerk reaction, not my considered reaction. If I take time to think about it, I understand that it's not one person trying to dictate what I should believe. But I have to take that time, and I'm not always good about doing that.

Fair enough. I will certainly read a tone of voice that is not there at times, especially when I'm baffled at how anybody could even have the opinion being stated. I too have to overcome the temptation to think any person who feels that way is an idiot or a jerk who just wants to spoil my fun.

Just make it clear. As annoying as it is, write "I feel..." or "I think..." or "This is why, in my opinion, ....". Sprinkle these in there, and you'll achieve your stated objective.

I'll generally indicate this after the fact when I can see that there is doubt about this subject. But I'd like to get to the point where, at least with the people who know me, it's pretty much implicit. Having to clarify it with total strangers on a message board is one thing; having to clarify it repeatedly with friends and family on Facebook who chose to read my stuff on said site because they are acquainted with me in real life is friggin' annoying.

[enemy anemone]

on the one hand, I think this new thread title sucks, plus the thread has moved more quickly than I can keep up with, but on the other hand, I think it is cool that it resulted in discussion!

about liking stuff and having an opinion about it, I think they are two different things. for me, liking something can just be a reaction or a feeling, and I don't really call it an opinion. I am interested in exploring what I like about the thing, but I usually am not aware of the reasons first and thus like the thing because of them. I recognize that other people could like things in this sort of way too. if they like something that I don't, I would be curious to find out what they like about it but wouldn't necessarily expect them to have well-thought-out reasons for why they like it. only if they are asserting some opinion about the thing being better than other things and expecting others to acknowledge it as such would I expect some reasons and explanations. mainly because I want to get a better understanding of it, not to prove they are wrong and I am right or whatever.

what spurred my original fuss about being entitled to an opinion was a different and more specific sort of thing, I think. it was the sort of opinion that imposes itself on what other people are allowed to do, I guess? like "I don't think certain people should be allowed to do this or that". and the people saying this don't seem to think that they need good reasons--they just say "that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it". there seems to be the implication that they think they're also entitled to try to make things difficult for those people. because that is their opinion and they're entitled to it. this. drives. me. nuts. you know, if they would just say "I hate those people and want to persecute them", that would probably bother me less than when they say "those people shouldn't be allowed to do this. just my opinion, but I'm entitled to it". well, it would still bother me, but at least the message is clear.

[murlough23]

I am interested in exploring what I like about the thing, but I usually am not aware of the reasons first and thus like the thing because of them. I recognize that other people could like things in this sort of way too.

I think the gut reaction or feeling often comes before the rational reasons for feeling that way. We often have to figure out why we feel the way we do - or at least, if we bother to really sit down and think about it. But I don't expect that someone is necessarily doing that sort of deep thinking upon first reaction. That generally comes later, and that's fine. I just want to know that someone's thought it through at all - if they haven't, maybe the point at which they were asked "why" is a good time to start.

If you keep an eye on our discussions about music here in any given month, you'll notice that our initial reactions to things and our likes/dislikes will sometimes seem inconsistent from our eventual reviews, music journal ratings, or just general comments given after full digestion. I think that comes from realizing the difference between a gut reaction and a more carefully considered one, and being honest when one doesn't match the other, rather than trying to do a convoluted reach-around to make your thoughts match your feelings.

if they like something that I don't, I would be curious to find out what they like about it but wouldn't necessarily expect them to have well-thought-out reasons for why they like it. only if they are asserting some opinion about the thing being better than other things and expecting others to acknowledge it as such would I expect some reasons and explanations. mainly because I want to get a better understanding of it, not to prove they are wrong and I am right or whatever.

This is usually my intent. Just because I do not understand why people like or believe something does not mean I think it is absolutely impossible or irrational to like or believe. I just want to understand what I might not be seeing.

what spurred my original fuss about being entitled to an opinion was a different and more specific sort of thing, I think. it was the sort of opinion that imposes itself on what other people are allowed to do, I guess? like "I don't think certain people should be allowed to do this or that". and the people saying this don't seem to think that they need good reasons--they just say "that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it".

I agree that this is a very weak cover for holding a viewpoint which could be offensive. It's equivalent to "I'm just sayin'." It really doesn't mean anything, and is sort of a verbal fall-back, a way to cover for the fact that you're losing ground and can't support your point logically. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. But opinions in and of themselves don't create rules or laws which are agreed upon by everyone. So if you want others to behave the way you think they should, you'd better do the work to show why this is beneficial and get the people (or at least those who make the decisions that the people have to abide by, but generally in this country that's the majority of us) to understand and agree with where you're coming from. Nobody's gonna change their behavior just because it's your opinion, if that opinion is not well-supported.

[bloop]

What you're getting at with the charred vs. lightly toasted is still much more like my first example, "this just doesn't taste good (to me)."  

So what?  That doesn't make it wrong.

A steak can be well-done, and, while that won't be my favorite, I'd do well to acknowledge that it's done well . . .

[Vlad!]

Well, again, I have to both agree and disagree. I'm all for the considered, rational approach, but isn't it hard to take that approach on everything? Maybe I just lack the rational capacity of you guys, but if I were to sit down and think everything I thought and believed through to its logical conclusion, I wouldn't get a whole lot else done. I'd be the prototypical hermit-philosopher, living in a cave somewhere and contemplating the universe.

For example, faith. Obviously I'm very willing to get into religious arguments, but there comes a time when you have to just say "I believe this just because". I encountered this when having a discussion with some friends about premarital sex. We went round and round, and eventually I just had to say, look guys, even if there weren't any other good reasons to live according to this principle--which I think there are, but you disagree--the fact is that I believe it pleases God when we obey his commands, and it seems reasonably clear that this is one of his commands. You're never going to understand where I'm coming from if you aren't willing to accept that the reason we are here is to please and honor God. If you do see that, all this other stuff that seems crazy kind of falls into place, but right now you're going to have to take my word on that.

So in a sense, I was doing pretty much was Schil is describing above. I'm saying "I think this group of people (unmarried dudes and ladies) shouldn't be doing this thing (having sex), and that's my opinion (belief) and I'm entitled to it". But it seemed at the time, and still seems, that this was the only way we would reach closure, because otherwise we were at an impasse because of the radically different places we were coming from.

[Vlad!]

A steak can be well-done, and, while that won't be my favorite, I'd do well to acknowledge that it's done well . . .

"Done well" doesn't take you very far before you exit the realm of objectivity and enters the realm of personal preference.

[bloop]

No, I think you can consciously and purposefully speak objectively about whether something you don't particularly like is done to a high quality standard.  I'll try to elaborate later, perhaps.

[murlough23]

Well, again, I have to both agree and disagree. I'm all for the considered, rational approach, but isn't it hard to take that approach on everything?

Not everything. Just the things you're challenged on, or asked why about. If you tell me you really like a good steak, I'm probably not going to make you sit down and philosophize over your reasons for liking this. (Unless I'm a hardcore vegetarian or something. Let's make it a good Boston cream pie instead.)

For example, faith. Obviously I'm very willing to get into religious arguments, but there comes a time when you have to just say "I believe this just because". I encountered this when having a discussion with some friends about premarital sex. We went round and round, and eventually I just had to say, look guys, even if there weren't any other good reasons to live according to this principle--which I think there are, but you disagree--the fact is that I believe it pleases God when we obey his commands, and it seems reasonably clear that this is one of his commands. You're never going to understand where I'm coming from if you aren't willing to accept that the reason we are here is to please and honor God. If you do see that, all this other stuff that seems crazy kind of falls into place, but right now you're going to have to take my word on that.

There comes a time when we have to accept that we're working from different axioms. I know that many people do not start from the axiom that there is a God, or that God loves us and wants to protect us, or that God gave us the Bible as His Word, etc. These are things that you either believe or you don't. You can get at the reasons behind them to some extent, but at best, you're probably going to get to something that was convincing enough for you to take the rest on faith, but might not be convincing enough for the next guy. That's just part of the nature of faith. I think it's worthwhile to show where you've thought about things reasonably given that axiom, but those who don't believe the same axiom won't come to the same conclusions. This is why I don't waste a lot of my energy trying to convince people who haven't even accepted the basic axioms of faith to live according to Christian moral codes. If we're coming from the same general belief system, then we might have some common ground to work from.

(What causes people to accept these axioms in the first place? This is still a mystery to me. Stone cold logic alone doesn't seem to cover it.)

So in a sense, I was doing pretty much was Schil is describing above. I'm saying "I think this group of people (unmarried dudes and ladies) shouldn't be doing this thing (having sex), and that's my opinion (belief) and I'm entitled to it". But it seemed at the time, and still seems, that this was the only way we would reach closure, because otherwise we were at an impasse because of the radically different places we were coming from.

I believe all people should live by that particular moral code only because I believe all people should become Christians. But many people are not Christians. Until they're convinced of the reasons to believe in Christ, it's gonna be tough to get the rest to follow, so unless they're harming someone who isn't consenting to it (e.g. something like murder, rape, theft, etc.), I tend to leave 'em alone. If a Christian's doing it, I'll probably get on their case, and if they've got a basis for believing that what I believe is not actually what the Bible teaches, we'll hash it out, but at least we're working from the same starting point.

This is why I voted no on Prop 8, BTW.

[NewDimension]

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had not long ago, about why I think expressing opinions can be really pointless; but not completely pointless. Opinions, in and of themselves, don't really mean that much at all in public conversations unless said conversations are of a personalized nature. A lot of times opinions only matter to the person that has the opinions and to anyone that wants to gather someone else's opinion about something. Other than that, opinons are pretty useless unless they're rooted on some empirical or universal fact, or unless the difference between opinion and fact is more shady and people just want to gather more information about the subject so as to shed more light on the nature of the subject itself -- but that's the point at which opinions and fact become inter-twined making the conversation of more value to each individual involved -- since there's the possibility of there being a universal fact invovled that isn't solely a self-created, subjective fact, which is only a "fact" within your own individual world; this makes the conversation more universal by nature, and from what I hypothesize, more people will be interested in it because it will have more widespread implications in validating whether someone's opinion is more than subjective.

That's why I think that opinions, in and of themselves, are only of an extremely limited value. There's not much of a reason to express your opinion publicly (unless it's intertwined with an actual or possible universal fact) unless you just want to assert your personal identity through stating your opinion or you want to engage with others in a personalized way.

There's really no point in arguing about opinions either, unless someone claims to base those opinions on some universal fact. Or you just want the person to rethink their opinions which could cause them to possibly change them.

[Vlad!]

Is it really reasonable to say that opinions are of such limited value? Aren't they, for better or for worse, part of who we are? When my friends air their opinions on a matter, I listen. Not because I'm waiting my turn to air my opinion but because by learning how they feel I'm learning more about them.

I believe all people should live by that particular moral code only because I believe all people should become Christians. But many people are not Christians. Until they're convinced of the reasons to believe in Christ, it's gonna be tough to get the rest to follow, so unless they're harming someone who isn't consenting to it (e.g. something like murder, rape, theft, etc.), I tend to leave 'em alone. If a Christian's doing it, I'll probably get on their case, and if they've got a basis for believing that what I believe is not actually what the Bible teaches, we'll hash it out, but at least we're working from the same starting point.

Sure. We don't hold non-Christians to the same standard because they lack the roots of belief that we have so they will simply resent being held to the standard that God holds us to. But that's exactly my point: we differ so much on these fundamental foundations that at times the only appropriate course of action is to mutually respect each-others' opinions (whether you think they're wrong or not) and leave it at that.

No, I think you can consciously and purposefully speak objectively about whether something you don't particularly like is done to a high quality standard.  I'll try to elaborate later, perhaps.

I guess it just raises the question of how many people have to buy into an opinion before it can be cited as authoritative. The only way one can speak objectively about the quality of something such as a musical piece or a painting or even a steak is to appeal to conventional wisdom around what constitutes quality. One might argue, for instance, that the tempo is remarkably consistent even when the drummer was not using a click track. Well, OK, but this is assuming that a consistent tempo is a laudable attribute and that the percussionist's ability to keep time unassisted affects in any way the quality of the piece. One might argue that the steak sitting before her is perfectly marbled, when measured according to FDA tenderness guidelines has an optimal tenderness value, and that the equipment used to cook the steak is expensive and well-maintained according to the operating manuals. Again, these objective measurements assume that marbled steak is good (in the future, backlash against red meat may cause well-marbled meat to be labeled hazardous due to increased risk of heart disease, say), that the FDA methodology and guidelines are indicators of quality, and that the equipment significantly affects the outcome.

(It's ironic that murlough chose the example of a Boston Cream Cake; since I'm allergic to chocolate, it's unlikely that I would be able to distinguish between a well-made cake and a poorly-made one despite my enthusiasm for and experience in baking, simply because both high-quality and low-quality chocolate taste of vomit to me, simply because that is what my brain associates them with and that is what my reaction to either a good or poor cake would be. Your opinion on the quality of the cake has no bearing on my refusal to eat it.)

To me, it is pointless to debate whether something I don't like is technically excellent or not. I'd rather hear why you like the band, not why you think they're technically excellent. If the two are one and the same, that's great, but don't try to make it sound like it's an objective fact rather than your subjective opinion.

[NewDimension]

Is it really reasonable to say that opinions are of such limited value? Aren't they, for better or for worse, part of who we are? 

It's probably unreasonable, but I think it's easy to think it's reasonable, although I don't think that's an excuse for its unreasonableness. Opinions are part of who we are, but what I mean is, society as a whole, may not necessarily value your opinions unless they're rooted in a universal fact even though it's inherent for humans to have opinions. Opinions can fluctuate drastically from individual to individual and soceity as a whole tends to (or seemingly tends to) give more weight to facts since facts don't fluctuate like opinions since they're universal truisms; but society itself is filled with opinions because humans have many opinions and humans make up soceity. It could be argued that since society is composed of individuals, each of whom have opinions, then all opinions matter to society even if they're not rooted in a universal fact that would encompass society as a whole; because opinions do shape the individuals that compose society, which in turn shapes society itself. So opinions can have a more universal value, but I think a lot of times the influence that opinions can have on society are underestimated at first glance; and since they're often underestimated it can seem as though they don't contain as much value as they do or can have on society.

When my friends air their opinions on a matter, I listen. Not because I'm waiting my turn to air my opinion but because by learning how they feel I'm learning more about them.

That's part of what I meant about "engaging with others in a personalized way." Opinions can matter in that way, but the conversation remains within a more personalized realm-- no one is talking about universal facts but instead subjective opinions / experiences and the inviduals engaged in the conversation may be deeply interested in it.

[bloop]

Conventional wisdom is derived from reality and/or practicality, so I reject that it is all that arbitrary.

To me, it is pointless to debate whether something I don't like is technically excellent or not. I'd rather hear why you like the band, not why you think they're technically excellent. If the two are one and the same, that's great, but don't try to make it sound like it's an objective fact rather than your subjective opinion.

I'm almost opposite here, but I have a more objectivist worldview in general.  Perhaps I'm not as interested in studying the reviewer, but what is being reviewed, or perhaps I value understanding more than I value feeling.  What something actually is has always been more interesting to me than how it stirs this or that person differently.

[NewDimension]

I'm almost opposite here, but I have a more objectivist worldview in general.  Perhaps I'm not as interested in studying the reviewer, but what is being reviewed, or perhaps I value understanding more than I value feeling.  What something actually is has always been more interesting to me than how it stirs this or that person differently.

I've always been interested in both the reviewer and the reviewed. To separate the value of understanding and feeling has always seemed a bit arbitrary for me, given the reality in which we live; but that's not to say I won't favor one more at one time than at another or in one situation more than another.  In order to achieve a more complete understanding you have to take into account feelings. And in order to experience feelings at a more authentic level you have to understand them at a deeper extent.

[Vlad!]

There are very few things of note whose objective properties are worth much absent their interaction with human beings. I see these interactions as being driven primarily by subjective experience--i.e. opinion--more than an objective Platonic ideal.

Anyway, I'm not saying that you can't speak intelligently about the properties of a thing without delving into the realm of opinion, but either way that's sort of ancillary to the topic at hand. I see the issues thus:

* Is everybody entitled to an opinion?
Yes. For the government to remove the right to form one's own opinion is repressive totalitarianism. For a society to remove the right to form one's own opinion is stifling conformism. For a person to remove the right for others to have their own opinions is sociopathic.

* Should someone be allowed to air an opinion even if that person cannot provide rational support for the opinion or "just feels that way" about it?
Yes. These opinions define the character of a person, and hearing them is interesting. If the opinions are uninteresting or annoying or ill-supported, I still believe in the person's right to air them simply because I don't think I should be set up as an arbiter of what opinions are and are not worthy of being expressed. If I don't find it worthwhile, I am free to ignore it, leave, and/or make a frustrated forum post about it.

* Is airing a poorly-supported opinion worthy of censure?
Possibly; as has been stated in this thread, if you're airing your opinion you're implicitly inviting others to air theirs. In the case of conflicting opinions, it may be worthwhile to discuss it further. However, I think it's reasonable to decline to discuss the issue further for a number of reasons, but when doing so some risk of disapprobation must be assumed.

* Is it preferable to discuss objective merit rather than subjective opinion?
It seems to me that objective merit is only relevant inasmuch as it applies to and shapes subjective opinion. I don't prefer to separate the former from the latter in most cases.

In case it wasn't clear, the above constitute my opinions on the issue

[bloop]

There are very few things of note whose objective properties are worth much absent their interaction with human beings. I see these interactions as being driven primarily by subjective experience--i.e. opinion--more than an objective Platonic ideal.

Feelings seem to unavoidably come out, and that's not a bad thing, but, for someone's feelings to be meaningful to me, they need to be based on objective reality.  I guess I'm just a Platonist, then, in that I believe in the ideal forms, so I'd take the exact opposite approach with that last question.   Your feelings are only meaningful, on a large scale, inasmuch as they are connected to or derived from objective reality.  To bring in feelings a bit, my interest in hearing people out is largely based on their ability to communicate these connections.

Of course, one's feelings can be almost everything to them, but it's not terribly useful criticism.  Murlough succinctly got the basic idea of what I'm trying to get across the first time, with the idea that there are things that are genuinely bad, and things that are good but not appealing to particular individuals. On the music board, I can think of more than a few examples.

[Vlad!]

Criticism is sort of an exception case for many reasons. For one, if you're not interested in the critic's opinion, why are you reading his criticism? And there is the feeling, which murlough perhaps rightly ridiculed above, that a critic will be discussing objective truths rather than subjective opinions (this feeling, of course, perpetuated by Platonists such as you, bloop). While I do expect some consideration behind the opinion, ultimately an opinion is all it is.

Certainly you can find things that are genuinely bad, and I think it's worthwhile to point these out. But the opposite of "genuinely bad" isn't "good", it's merely "competent". Competence is a pretty low bar.

[bloop]

Criticism is sort of an exception case for many reasons. For one, if you're not interested in the critic's opinion, why are you reading his criticism?

I am interested in criticism, which includes informed opinion.

And there is the feeling, which murlough perhaps rightly ridiculed above, that a critic will be discussing objective truths rather than subjective opinions (this feeling, of course, perpetuated by Platonists such as you, bloop). While I do expect some consideration behind the opinion, ultimately an opinion is all it is.

Ultimately, I don't think so.  I think the critic can ultimately be right, wrong, or somewhere in between.  The issue I struggle with is not whether objective truth exists, for any given thing, but to what degree is is presently knowable.  As a Christian, though, I believe there is Someone who knows everything.

Certainly you can find things that are genuinely bad, and I think it's worthwhile to point these out. But the opposite of "genuinely bad" isn't "good", it's merely "competent". Competence is a pretty low bar.

I think one can find things that are genuinely good as well, and express that with some confidence, and talk about the way it makes them feel as well.  I'm not talking about a binary system here.

[murlough23]

Ultimately, I don't think so.  I think the critic can ultimately be right, wrong, or somewhere in between.  The issue I struggle with is not whether objective truth exists, for any given thing, but to what degree is is presently knowable.  As a Christian, though, I believe there is Someone who knows everything.

I figure God is aware of the existence of everything, including all of the obscure difficult art rock albums in existence, so He must have an opinion on a particular album. However, I don't envision a scenario in which God speaks to a person and says, "bloop, My plan for you is that you give up teaching and become a missionary in Cambodia. Oh, and by the way, that Flaming Lips album? Pure awesome. Go tell everyone you know." So yeah, I'm not sure such an objective opinion is knowable, though I suppose I can't prove that it's not just by pointing out the seeming absurdity of God telling it to a person.

[bloop]

I'm trying to get at the basis of my philosophy.  I'm sure God has higher priorities than revealing the truth about particular pieces of art and food, but that doesn't necessarily imply that truth, even in areas of so little relative importance, is perpetually unknowable.  A few clues are at least available to us mortals.

[murlough23]

I'm trying to get at the basis of my philosophy.  I'm sure God has higher priorities than revealing the truth about particular pieces of art and food, but that doesn't necessarily imply that truth, even in areas of so little relative importance, is perpetually unknowable.  A few clues are at least available to us mortals.

I don't disagree with this. But I think you could see why others (even those who believe in God) would respond incredulously if you were to say, "I think this is a good album because God does." So you apply known principles that God has taught to your worldview of music, I guess. I don't disagree with that approach; I just think one has to step very carefully.

[bloop]

Yeah, it's limited in its practical application. 

Also, I'd probably be arrogant enough to disagree with God about a few albums.  "Oh, come on now, God. It's lo-fi noise rock. The clanging gong is intentional!"