Can opinions be better or worse?

[earthworm]

Easy.

My opinions are better. Other opinions are worse.

IF taken seriously . .
The danger arrives the very second one believes this .

 

[Fledermaus]

Correct, because we believe that all Men are created Equal which means it is wrong to judge or discourage people(particularly young people) on criteria that are largely outside of their control and has more to do with the circumstances of their birth than it does with their character.

Again, you are willfully ignoring the distinction between judging a person for who they are vs judging a person for what they say and do.

MLK didn't say we shouldn't judge people at all. He said we should judge them on the content of their character not the color of their skin. Liberals judge people based on their character not the color of their skin or any other attribute that is determined largely by the circumstances of a person's birth.

I am ignoring nothing. On this very board I have been told more than once I am dehumanizing someone if I reject their factually incorrect opinion.

 

[Lursa]

So clearly the vast majority of people around here agree that we can assign a value to opinions. If we can make judgments about a person's opinion then what is wrong with negatively judging a person who continues to push a particularly horrible opinion despite glaring evidence to the contrary?

It's all a matter of degree IMO mrgreen but yes. I definitely develop impressions for credibility based on longer term observation and trends of opinion for posters.

 

[ecofarm]

IF taken seriously . .
The danger arrives the very second one believes this .

If you don't believe it, then why the **** do you hold those opinions.

 

[Xelor]

Can opinions be rated as better or worse?

Opinions themselves? "Sort of, but mostly, no." Opinions aren't "better"/"worse;" they are more/less legitimate, that legitimacy being referred to as soundness/cogency. Goodness and badness are fitting descriptors for a host of things, but opinions aren't among that host of things.

• Exception: It's fine for a child to think of opinions in terms of degrees of goodness and badness, but once one completes the tenth grade or so, and certainly as an adult, one is expected to recognize and apply to one's comprehension/articulation of arguments and conclusions more expositive and cognitive precision and nuance than is inherent in the terms "good/better" and "bad/worse," terms having no nuance.

The rationale, the arguments that bolster/refute an opinion are evaluable on a spectrum having as endpoints "sound/cogent" and "unsound/uncogent." A rationale's legitimacy is directly proportional to its soundness/cogency.

 

[MrWonka]

I am ignoring nothing. On this very board, I have been told more than once I am dehumanizing someone if I reject their factually incorrect opinion.

Highly doubtful, but I'm not going to waste my time digging through all your pointless posts. The point here is the overall general theme of the political parties and ideologies.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/8qwwzp/who-you-hate-depends-on-how-smart-you-are-study-finds

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...berals-arent-as-tolerant-as-they-think-215114

The two articles refer to the same study I believe, but it talks about how conservative minded people tend to hate low-choice groups. They hate people based on things like race, religion, country of origin, gender sexual orientation...

Whereas liberals hated people too, but they tended to hate people from high-choice groups. Namely conservatives, racists, anti-semites, pro-lifers, religious extremists...

So Conservatives as a whole tend to hate people for who they are whereas Liberals tend to hate people for their idiotic beliefs and stupid opinions. Liberals see stupid Right-Wing bigots irrationally hating on people for things that are largely outside of their control, and we hate them for that reason.

i.e. Liberals will judge you for your moronic opinions, whereas Conservatives will hate you based on things you were born into and have little or no control over.

 

[Fledermaus]

Highly doubtful, but I'm not going to waste my time digging through all your pointless posts. The point here is the overall general theme of the political parties and ideologies.

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/8qwwzp/who-you-hate-depends-on-how-smart-you-are-study-finds

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...berals-arent-as-tolerant-as-they-think-215114

The two articles refer to the same study I believe, but it talks about how conservative minded people tend to hate low-choice groups. They hate people based on things like race, religion, country of origin, gender sexual orientation...

Whereas liberals hated people too, but they tended to hate people from high-choice groups. Namely conservatives, racists, anti-semites, pro-lifers, religious extremists...

So Conservatives as a whole tend to hate people for who they are whereas Liberals tend to hate people for their idiotic beliefs and stupid opinions. Liberals see stupid Right-Wing bigots irrationally hating on people for things that are largely outside of their control, and we hate them for that reason.

i.e. Liberals will judge you for your moronic opinions, whereas Conservatives will hate you based on things you were born into and have little or no control over.

Your incredulity is noted.

And hatred is hatred is hatred.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Can someone's opinion be more valuable, useful, reasonable, and therefore better than another person's?

If not why do we bother arguing over them?

If so do we really need to respect everyone's opinions when some are clearly bad?

What criteria could be used as the basis for rating someone's opinion as better or worse?

Are there different classifications of opinions where some might be closer to right and wrong whereas others are totally up to preference?

Assuming we aren't talking about aesthetics, then yes --people's opinions are almost always more valuable or more reasonable.

 

[MrWonka]

Assuming we aren't talking about aesthetics, then yes --people's opinions are almost always more valuable or more reasonable.

Then why do we lump them together? Generally in grade school when we were learning about opinions the examples the teachers always gave revolved around aesthetics. An opinion is supposed to be something that cannot be proven wrong. But it sure seems like we can prove a lot of so-called "opinions" to be wrong over time with counterexamples and contradictions. It seems to me that a lot of people just use the word opinion to describe their beliefs in order to hedge in case someone comes up with a better argument, but in reality, they are not opinions at all. They are logical arguments.

 

[MrWonka]

And hatred is hatred is hatred.

Wrong. It is perfectly rational to hate someone who did something terrible. Raped you, killed a family member, stole from you, supported Hitler, joined the KKK...

But if your only basis for your hatred is that of skin color, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, broad based religion, favorite football team, favorite band... that hatred is irrational and makes you a stupid person. None of these things tell us anything about the character, intelligence, honesty, work ethic or general nature of the person.

When you do stupid **** you deserve to be treated like an idiot. When you do evil things you deserve to be treated as we would treat an evil person. When you make disgusting choices we have every right to say that you are disgusting. You reep what you sew and what goes around comes around. That's Karma, and if you don't like it you should try and be a better person. But being born isn't a crime. It's not your fault, and you have no control over this situation you end up in or the way you turn out.

 

[Fledermaus]

Wrong. It is perfectly rational to hate someone who did something terrible. Raped you, killed a family member, stole from you, supported Hitler, joined the KKK...

But if your only basis for your hatred is that of skin color, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, broad based religion, favorite football team, favorite band... that hatred is irrational and makes you a stupid person. None of these things tell us anything about the character, intelligence, honesty, work ethic or general nature of the person.

When you do stupid **** you deserve to be treated like an idiot. When you do evil things you deserve to be treated as we would treat an evil person. When you make disgusting choices we have every right to say that you are disgusting. You reep what you sew and what goes around comes around. That's Karma, and if you don't like it you should try and be a better person. But being born isn't a crime. It's not your fault, and you have no control over this situation you end up in or the way you turn out.

Jesus, MLK, Gandhi and many others would likely disagree.

 

[MrWonka]

Jesus, MLK, Gandhi, and many others would likely disagree.

All three of those men were murdered. I don't plan on dying for your sins buddy.

 

[Fledermaus]

All three of those men were murdered. I don't plan on dying for your sins buddy.

So was John Lennon..... And?

 

[haymarket]

Two stories about opinion.

The first came as I got my Bachelors degree majoring in Political Science. Polisci majors had to take a two semester class in Advanced Political Theory and the prof was a particular hard ass who was famous for failing half the class. At the end of the class - he announced that we were soon to be proud holders of a degree in Political Science. And he told us that holding such a sheepskin was absolutely worthless in bar discussions, family gatherings, political debates, and any exchange of political opinion with people who did not hold such a degree.

He pointed out that if a medical doctor speaks up about disease or a particular operation, people generally defer to his expertise and accept he is far more knowledgable than they are. The same with an automotive engineer when it comes to cars or a plumber on why your pipes are not working properly. But in politics, every persons opinion is considered as good as the lowest or highest educated person in society. At least that is how the great unwashed feel about it. Even though everyone of us in the room that day resented the wisdom and felt we deserved more respect than what would be accorded to the political opinion of a waitress or a windshield wiper salesman.


Years later I was killing time in a hotel restaurant and in the booth next to me was the Boston Celtics TV and radio announcers having a long lunch and drinking the afternoon away before a game with the Pistons. I did my best to listen in and they got around to what I felt was a long running , never ending debate about the greatest players in the game. People like Johnny Most and Tommy Heinsohn - who had literally seen thousands and thousands and thousands of game up front and personal compared Bill Russell to Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson and Larry Bird who was then with the club.

After hearing that crowd talk about it - it put to shame fans like me waxing forth on the same topic and I have never quite felt worthy of saying much about it.

In other words - there is educated opinion. There is expert opinion. There is experienced opinion. And to pretend otherwise is simply folly.

 

[SDET]

One way to judge opinions is whether following them leads to favorable or adverse outcomes. A pawn shop may think it's a good idea for you to take out a 200% APR loan. It's a good opinion --- for the pawn shop.

 

[chuckiechan]

Since opinion are unsupported by facts, the whole thing is a value judgement, so one even the most daft here as a right to his opinion regardless of how wrong it is.

Our entire political system is built on opinions.

 

[MrWonka]

So was John Lennon..... And?

So they had ever right to hate those who hated them. They chose not to, but it didn't prevent them from being murdered.

The thing you need to keep in mind is that all of those men were in the minority at the time. They had to use peaceful resistance because they didn't have the numbers on their side. The majority of Americans voted against Donald Trump, and his approval rating has fallen ever since. The biggest voting block he had was older Americans who are slowly dying off meanwhile the people who hate him and his supporters are young and growing.

Trump and his supporters are going to reap what they sew, and payback is going to be a bitch.

 

[MrWonka]

Since opinion are unsupported by facts, the whole thing is a value judgment

An opinion can be supported by facts while still being an opinion. It is a fact that Spinach is generally healthy. If I say spinach is good because it's healthy that is still an opinion even though it's supported by fact. If I say that I like the Patriots because they win the most that is still an opinion even though it's based on a fact.

Our entire political system is built on opinions.

Is it? Or are you just using the word opinion way to broadly?

 

[chuckiechan]

Nope. Facts are facts, opinions are unproven. An opinion can be supported with facts to make a case that is should move over to the fact column, but until the last proof is in place, it remains and opinion. You saying spinach is good because it's health is you misstating a fact as an opinion.

Our political arguments are about opinions of what to do with the facts of something.

Fact: Mass transit moves people.
Opinion: We should use more of it.
Political problem: How do you prove we should use more of it?

 

[Superfly]

Can someone's opinion be more valuable, useful, reasonable, and therefore better than another person's?

If not why do we bother arguing over them?

If so do we really need to respect everyone's opinions when some are clearly bad?

What criteria could be used as the basis for rating someone's opinion as better or worse?

Are there different classifications of opinions where some might be closer to right and wrong whereas others are totally up to preference?

o·pin·ion

Dictionary result for opinion
/əˈpinyən/

noun

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Opinions are one's view on something. Not bad, not good. Just how one person sees it.

Can't really say someone has a "good" or "bad" opinion, because the opinion belongs to the person holding it. We can agree or disagree with that opinion, though, based on our own opinion.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'd rather not say "opinion" again for a while. :lol: Sounds weird when you say it that many times.

 

[MrWonka]

An opinion can be supported with facts to make a case that is should move over to the fact column, but until the last proof is in place, it remains and opinion.

And would you consider an opinion supported by more facts to be better and more valuable than an opinion supported by little or no facts?

You saying spinach is good because it's health is you misstating a fact as an opinion.

No, I'm demonstrating that an opinion supported by a fact doesn't make the opinion a fact.

Our political arguments are about opinions of what to do with the facts of something.

Fact: Mass transit moves people.
Opinion: We should use more of it.
Political problem: How do you prove we should use more of it?

Okay, let's try something a bit more relevant now...

The statement: "White people are superior to black people."

Is that a fact, an opinion, or something else?

 

[MrWonka]

Can't really say someone has a "good" or "bad" opinion because the opinion belongs to the person holding it.

So if a meteorologist tells you that according to the radar it's going to be mostly sunny with zero chance of rain tomorrow, and then some guy tells you it's going to rain tomorrow because his dog itched himself behind his left ear. You don't think we can reasonably assign a value to those opinions? We can't judge one of them as being better or more valuable to than the other? We shouldn't consider either of those people to be an idiot for thinking the way they do?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So if a meteorologist tells you that according to the radar it's going to be mostly sunny with zero chance of rain tomorrow, and then some guy tells you it's going to rain tomorrow because his dog itched himself behind his left ear. You don't think we can reasonably assign a value to those opinions? We can't judge one of them as being better or more valuable to than the other? We shouldn't consider either of those people to be an idiot for thinking the way they do?

Only a special talking groundhog can have a respected opinion - look it up.

 

[Fledermaus]

So they had ever right to hate those who hated them. They chose not to, but it didn't prevent them from being murdered.

The thing you need to keep in mind is that all of those men were in the minority at the time. They had to use peaceful resistance because they didn't have the numbers on their side. The majority of Americans voted against Donald Trump, and his approval rating has fallen ever since. The biggest voting block he had was older Americans who are slowly dying off meanwhile the people who hate him and his supporters are young and growing.

Trump and his supporters are going to reap what they sew, and payback is going to be a bitch.

You do have a Trump festish....

All hatred is destructive to some degree.

 

[Superfly]

So if a meteorologist tells you that according to the radar it's going to be mostly sunny with zero chance of rain tomorrow, and then some guy tells you it's going to rain tomorrow because his dog itched himself behind his left ear. You don't think we can reasonably assign a value to those opinions? We can't judge one of them as being better or more valuable to than the other? We shouldn't consider either of those people to be an idiot for thinking the way they do?

I would believe the meteorologist because he bases his information on fact (machines, recording data, etc).

Old dude down the street would be considered an opinion (one owned by him) because he is not basing his information on fact.