What do you mean by respect? And is it an actual opinion, like “chocolate is delicious”, or is it just something bigoted you believe? That’s usually what people mean when they want “respect” for their “opinion”. If that’s the case, no, I don’t respect it and I don’t respect you.
Also by respect do you mean let you think your opinion without trying to convince you otherwise or do you mean allow your opinion to affect me without complaint
The depends on the opinion
An argument is only as respectable as the person making it.
It depends on how harmful that opinion is. You prefer vanilla ice cream because you like the mild flavor - cool, difference of opinion. You prefer there were no same-sex marriages because your religion is against it - no, that affects other people’s lives so if you want me to respect that opinion you would have to have a good argument.
I don’t think in terms of respect about something like this as this leans towards some kind of snobbery or predudice. Either I agree or don’t. Regardless of any perceived level of knowledge or intelligence behind an argument, I’ll respond as a point of advancing shared knowledge rather than trying to ‘win’.
No. Your beliefs, yes. Your opinions, not at all.
But “respect” for a belief can have many meanings. I’m not going to try to change your beliefs unless you’re into that. So I’ll respect them in that sense. But I’m not going to adopt your beliefs or act them out just because you have them.
I do not respect your belief but I do respect you believing it. French law is very clear about the distinction
Can you give an example of what you mean by someone respecting your opinion and someone not respecting it?
As many others have said in this thread, it comes down to how you define “respect” and “opinion”. Based on some of your responses, I think you are using a broad definition of “opinion”, though some more clarification might be useful there. If you’re worried about partisanship adding bias, try offering equivalent opinions from different directions as examples, eg “I think Trump should be president” and “I think Biden should be president”.
What many?
When I read through the thread earlier, I stopped at 3. Looking more thoroughly now, I see it was just those 3. But it is telling that that’s the only part you responded to, like you’re not here for a discussion but to prove some point.
OP asked this less than 24 hours before they went mask-off as a Fascist.
Yes, you do need a good argument. And no, Forced sterilization and eugenics isn’t a good argument or even a conversation worth dignifying.
Extremely concerning shit
Opinions can’t be “respected.”
This is a spread from yes to no where “yee” applies to hypothetical things that are fully objective and “no” to hypothetical things that are fully subjective
Do you have any examples for „fully objective“ things?
No. I specified that they are hypothetical for that reason.
So if I understood you, you meant in reality we should more or less respect the opinion without arguments based on whether it is more or less subjective?
Yes.
It depends on what your opinion is and what you mean by respect.
If your opinion is not well explained or backed up by evidence/logic and isn’t something completely subjective, what is there to respect?
If your opinion is reprehensible, downright stupid, or ignorant? You have access to the entire base of human knowledge and are still ignorant, so what is there to respect?
Your opinion is completely logical/uncontroversial or is well backed by evidence? Where does respect come into it?
I wanted to type something really snarky, but I’m trying to be better than that.
So I refer you to the fact that you should still have respect for someone’s opinion even if they don’t have complete knowledge on it, or to put it your way “You have access to the entire base of human knowledge and are still ignorant, so what is there to respect?”.
People are allowed to have opinions that should be respected even though they don’t have complete knowledge of a subject
What do you mean by respected?
Not necessarily. If you have a lot of experience or a different perspective and you seem trustworthy to me, you don’t need to have a good argument. On the other hand, if someone else comes along with a good argument why your opinion is wrong, I will start doubting you.
For example, if you’ve been growing potatoes for 30 years, you don’t have to explain the biochemistry of potatoes for me to respect your advice. And if you’re a black person telling me that our town is terribly racist, I will believe you without needing a list of every single racist incident that happened to you.
deleted by creator
But what if my perspective differs?
Argumentation cannot account for that.
Argumentation requires a shared perspective and shared axioms.
You can have different perspectives on observable facts. But if your perspective runs counter to observable facts then you’re simply wrong.
If a worldview is devoid of reason and no argument will dissuade the person, all useful dialog is impossible.
It isn’t a worldview devoid of reason. It’s perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.
Reason is the house. The preexisting assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.
Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped… all require different house designs. Dig?
Correct me if I’m wrong, OP, but it sounds like you’re talking about retreating to the axioms of the particular belief system, as in there is a point where reason breaks down because you get to things that you (the person whose expressing their opinion) have accepted that’s different than me.
To me this is a bit of a Motte and Bailey fallacy as your question was whether or not you have a good argument and then someone replied to that and then moved to the set of assumptions which has nothing to do with argument.
For me personally, the other person has to demonstrate some level of critical reasoning for me to respect their opinions, even if their assumptions are different than mine. Beliefs that are entered into using reasoning are more useful than ones without because they can be changed which is what discourse is all about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Today I learned! :)
There is still a foundation that you should be able to explain. Do you want to just explain what happened instead of talking in hypotheticals? What is your hot take?
Really? A worldview requiring accepting ideas without verification and contrary to logic isn’t devoid of reason? In what planet?
deleted by creator
But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.
If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite, there’s something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as “this guy is just stupid”.
This is a problem with language and the internet.
deleted by creator
Some opinions cannot be explained. For example “chocolate is better than vanilla”.
There are a lot of those. It’s the earth upon which all argumentation stands.
So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”
But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn’t really exist?
“I enjoy chocolate more” and “I associate chocolate with positive memories” are both explanations that are still personal experience that isn’t necessarily shared experiences but can be understood through communication.
deleted by creator
Yes
What if they simply see things differently?
Chocolate is better than vanilla. Argument? Of course not.
Argument requires shared assumptions. If the assumptions are not shared then you can’t argue.
And then what’s left? Respect for the individual?
“Chocolate is better than vanilla” is surprisingly ambiguous. If you said “I prefer chocolate over vanilla” there’s no argument because that’s a subjective statement. If you said “the human pallet prefers chocolate to vanilla, thus those that prefer vanilla are defective” well now you have made far more than a subjective statement that also labels those that don’t share it, you have to be prepared to defend that. If you said “chocolate is healthier than vanilla” then you might need to at least be able to provide some facts and figures like lower sugar content or something.
The point is: when it’s a matter of subjective preference, presented in a way that makes no judgments of dissenters, no arguments should be expected. Making a claim of fact may require evidence. And making a critique of others is asking for a fight.
I would say yes. The only time you don’t is when I already agree with you, but that’s because I (hopefully) already know the good argument.
I don’t believe in “common sense”, that’s just the biases someone already has. Some of them correct, some of them not, all unchecked therefore all invalid as a basis for anything.
If we could dispose of respect for the individual, then we could replace democracy with science. That would be efficient.
Science doesn’t have values, and policy needs values. Science can tell you the best way to achieve your values, but if your values don’t align with the values of the majority of people, then you’re going to use science to make people unhappy.
It sounds like you just want to impose your values onto other people, which is precisely what democracy was invented to protect people against.
