"It's just my opinion"

[Zamn]

Dictionaries are a bad place to look for definitions, I don't think they should ever be used in debate. Firstly, no dictionary is entirely authorative, there are many different dictionaries and they don't all agree. A dictionary defintion of a word is still potentially open to argument. Following from that, dictionaries define words, not concepts, my use of the word 'opinion' is not necessarily the same as the authors of that particular dictionary.

But the definition of the word IS the entire debate here. In every single dictionary you go to your going to find something very similar to the one I linked. You can't change the definition of a word to try and make it better fit your arguement.

Me saying "Blue is pretty" cannot be proven/disproven. You can either agree or disagree with an opinion. You can even partially agree or disagree with an opinion. You can't prove or disprove one.

Again I ask you to provide me with your own example of an opinion that can be proven/disproven.

The definition of an opinion is too hard a question for a dictionary to answer. To take another example, there's huge debate in science over exactly what constitutes life, you can't solve this debate just by looking up life in the dictionary and seeing what it says.

As for my definition of an opinion? I'm using the word opinion to mean any viewpoint taken on issue whether it be right or wrong, falsifiable or not. If that's not what you take the word to mean then it's only an issue of semantics.

 

[bluepilot]

The exchange of opinions does not necessarily lead to intellectual or meaningful descussion

Opinions are easy to form. You do not need facts, or even to think about them, you can just decide `oh, I think this, end of story`.

Much more important that opinions, is facts and how we interpritate them. I would much rather have an exchange of veiwpoints than an exchange of opinions anyday.

I blame the education system though, it stresses that you muct have an opinion to be intelligent, but isn`t remaining undecided because you want to consider other possibilities a more intelligent option?

 

[Axeli]

The theory of Utilitarianism comes under ethics or simple morality, not meta-ethics.

I though we were talking both.

Yes, human-beings find things either pleasant or unpleasant.
But why does that mean doing pleasant things is "good"?

Now you're just arguing names for things. "Good" or "evil" are just terms under which we throw things depending on our beliefs or ethical reasoning.

 

[Maze1125]

The theory of Utilitarianism comes under ethics or simple morality, not meta-ethics.

I though we were talking both.

Perhaps, but I haven't noticed you saying anything about meta-ethics beyond "Of course ethics aren't subjective." with nothing to back that claim up.

Yes, human-beings find things either pleasant or unpleasant.
But why does that mean doing pleasant things is "good"?

Now you're just arguing names for things. "Good" or "evil" are just terms under which we throw things depending on our beliefs or ethical reasoning.

What?
"Good" and "evil", or something equivalent, are pretty much fundamental words when it comes arguing about ethics.

Either "Good" (or whatever word you want to use) is objective, or it is subjective. That is the problem of meta ethics.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

You can have your own opinion just be ready to back it up, or you're bullshit.

 

[Snowalker]

No offense, haven't we established this years ago?

Hell, aren't most wars fought over opinions?

 

[Axeli]

The theory of Utilitarianism comes under ethics or simple morality, not meta-ethics.

I though we were talking both.

Perhaps, but I haven't noticed you saying anything about meta-ethics beyond "Of course ethics aren't subjective." with nothing to back that claim up.

Morals, ethics and meta-ethics are used pretty synonymously in casual speech. Keep being the focus on grammar-nazing like thas't and I'll be bored with this in no time.
And why would I really initially back anything up without even knowing if anyone's intrested? Hate to end up talking to a wall (a result that comes all the more likely if you make one long-ass post).

Yes, human-beings find things either pleasant or unpleasant.
But why does that mean doing pleasant things is "good"?

Now you're just arguing names for things. "Good" or "evil" are just terms under which we throw things depending on our beliefs or ethical reasoning.

What?
"Good" and "evil", or something equivalent, are pretty much fundamental words when it comes arguing about ethics.

Either "Good" (or whatever word you want to use) is objective, or it is subjective. That is the problem of meta ethics.

Okay, I'm not sure what your case is here to be honest. Are you saying there's no way of determining whether feeling good or bad are "right" and "wrong"? That somehow feeling good might actually be inherently wrong?

That's completely beside the point. Yes, as definitions good and evil are subjective to at least some degree. The point isn't to pin "good" or "evil" to certain types of experiences (pleasure/pain).
The point is that the definition of experiences as either painful or pleasurable is the only objective thing when you want to define the quality of an experience. Whether you want to call it good and evil is up to you, but that's not the important thing, but that logically people should use it as the guidance when deciding how to live their lives.

 

[The Austin]

"It's just my opinion". There are few phrases that get me foaming at the mouth as rapidly as this one. What's wrong with it? Well that, my friend, is what this thread is all about.

Almost every debate I get into, whether in real life or online, the person I'm talking to inevitably falls back on that old reliable "it's just my opinion" and the person saying this generally assumes that this is immediately the end of the argument, because everybody is entitled to their opinion, and who am I to be critical of theirs? Essentially, most people seem to assume the subjectivist view that all opinions are equally valid, and consider anybody who doesn't share this assumption as intolerant and arrogant.

But have they really thought it through? If we were to genuinely accept that all opinions are equally valid, then all discussion is rendered irrelevant, how can we possibly discuss the merits of my position versus your position if both positions are perfectly correct just because we hold them? If you have ever thought that somebody else is wrong about anything then you have acknowledged that thier opinion is not equally valid with yours. Everyone implicitly accepts that some opinions are more valid than others.

If all opinions are not equally valid, then you are perfectly entitled to criticise someone else's opinion. It doesn't undermine their right to an opinion, you're not forcing them to change it, you're merely arguing that it's flawed in some way. "It's just my opinion" is an utterly redundant phrase, there is no reason somebody cannot be critical of your opinion, and indeed the same thing applies to taste which is just a form of opinion relating to specific areas.

So next time somebody tells you your opinion is wrong, don't regurgitate that pathetic old phrase, tell them why it's not wrong.

......You cant have a wrong opinion...

Thats why its an opinion.
Wow.

 

[Bigeyez]

The definition of an opinion is too hard a question for a dictionary to answer. To take another example, there's huge debate in science over exactly what constitutes life, you can't solve this debate just by looking up life in the dictionary and seeing what it says.

As for my definition of an opinion? I'm using the word opinion to mean any viewpoint taken on issue whether it be right or wrong, falsifiable or not. If that's not what you take the word to mean then it's only an issue of semantics.

Uh no, just no. Your argueing over the universally accepted definition of a word.

Imagine for one second that you were trying to say that a verb wasn't the part of speech that expresses action. We'd all say your were obviously wrong because the definition of a verb in the English Language is "the part of speech that expresses existence, action, or occurrence." Thats essentially what your doing with the word Opinion.

As for your example heres the first two definitions for the word Life: (There are several but these are the two that pertain to the context we are using)

-----------------

life  /laɪf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyf] plural lives  /laɪvz/

?noun 1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

------------------

The debate you are refering to is about "the conditions that distinguish organisms from inorganic objects". It really doesn't matter what these conditions are therefore whatever comes out of the debate doesn't matter because the definition of the word Life will stay the same.


Again for the third time; Give me an example of an opinion that fits your definition. You can't.

------------------

Edit: You said earlier in this thread "In my opinion the earth is flat" as "proof" that an opinion can be wrong. "In my opinion the earth is flat" however is NOT an opinion. It's a statement "the earth is flat" that you added "in my opinion" in front of. Saying "In my opinion" like you did is using the phrase incorrectly.

For example if I say "In my opinion, the U.S. has 50 states". The U.S. having 50 states is a statement that stands on it's own (it's a complete sentence) and is a FACT. Adding "In my opinion" in front of it doesn't all of a sudden turn the FACT that the U.S. has 50 states into an opinion.

 

[Bigeyez]

"it's just my opinion" = I haven't thought about the topic in question.
Such as "I hate LotR".
I ask why.
"I just do".
What the hell?? The only things you just do are keeping your heart beating and other involuntary actions. Every single opinion can be explained. If the person cannot explain their opinion, they are thick.
And, there are good, bad, and wrong opinions: e.g. "I hate LotR because the acting is bad".
No, sorry. No two ways about it, the acting is not bad, whereas "I hate LotR because I personally cannot connect with a fantastical world" makes sense, as it boils down to personal taste.
Look up the Socratic method. It is the perfect way for showing people how their opinion is wrong/founded on lack of thought, not logic.

Except that "I hate LotR because the acting is bad" is NOT wrong because bad is subjective to whoever is saying it. To me LoTR could have had the shittest acting out of any movie I have ever seen. You disagreeing with that doesn't make the opinion wrong, it simply makes it an opinion you don't agree with. Edit: Generally yes people can agree on if a movie has good actors/overall acting but remember it's all subjective and different people have different views on what makes for good acting.

And an opinion can indeed be founded on lack of thought or for illogical reasons but again that doesn't make it wrong.

I can say "Half-Life 2 had the worst story ever. I hated every character in the game. They all sounded and looked horrible to me".

MOST people would disagree with that opinion and it definitely seems like that opinion is illogical (judging by the fact the game was highly praised for it's story) but that doesn't make it wrong. Vice versa it doesn't make it right either, it's just something you can agree or disagree with.

 

[epiphany1993]

This reminds me of a conversation I had in college; a girl said to me: "I have the right to my opinion" to which I replied: "Yes, and we have the right not to hear it".

i had a scenario like that except i think i said something like you also have the right to remain silent but you arnt usig that are you? to which she won the argument by slapping me and hooking up with my best friend... hell hath no fury

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

Opinions can't be wrong, but they can still be fucking retarded.

The difference being? Of course they can be wrong. My opinion is that the world is flat. Is that not wrong?

Technically, since that can be proven true or false, it would be a fact.

 

[TerribleTerryTate]

'It's just my opinion' is right up there with 'No offence, but...' for phrases I want to physically punch in the nuts.

Saying, it's just my opinion is not only irratating but obvious too. I assume everything that comes out of someone's mouth is their opinion, as an opinion is simply someone's thoughts on a particular subject. Saying something then backing it up with, yeh well, it's just my opinion is about as pointless as breathing then telling everyone in the room you're breathing to stay alive. Everyone assumes it to be the case, it doesn't need to be said.

Everyone has a right to think and to say what they think out loud, that doesn't mean I'll agree with what they're saying. I might think someone is an asshole, that doesn't mean to say I assume everyone thinks that same person is an asshole.

I'm not sure if anyone has the same hatred for the 'No offence, but...' phrase as me, but seriously it needs to be killed somehow.
'No offence, but you're the biggest twat I've ever met in my life. No offence though.'
Do people think putting the 'No offence' in makes everything else ok? It'll somehow soften the blow from a serious attack on someone verbally. I dunno if it's the same where you live, but from where I'm from (England,) I hear it a lot, and it does my tits in.

 

[Joshimodo]

-Snip-

Agreed.

You should have a read of this literary genius.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood

 

[Guitar Gamer]

Just because you have a right to your opinion does not protect you from being wrong.

well ironically said sir

 

[realguypablo]

Well, if its a debate, then I'd counter with "but that's not what we're debating". Tell them that you're debating facts, and while opinions would be appreciated, they're not debatable and thus, have no place in an intellectual discourse.

I agree. A person has the right to come up with whatever opinion one wants. Facts are different since they are concrete ideas. Just because someone puts "my opinion is" in front of their statement does not make it an opinion. It's merely a good way of not saying how wrong one is.

 

[fluffybunny937]

I'm pretty sure 90% of people who use that line are quoting The Big Lebowski.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck

 

[jboking]

Ultimately saying "you're wrong" and "I disagree with you" are the same thing.

I didn't want to cut in, but this statement is simply wrong. Saying "I disagree with you" is an acknowledgment that your opinion is different than mine. "You're wrong" is a statement used when it is possible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong, aka using evidence.

Oh and for shits and giggles here is a definition for opinion:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

As for the OT: yeah, the phrase can get annoying if you are in the middle of a heated argument. You just have to recognize that this means that they have nothing left to argue. A.K.A. they lost. If you feel like being a dick or if you just particularly hate the person you are arguing with you can point this out. It typically gets the argument at least slowly rolling again.