"It's just my opinion"

[Turtleboy1017]

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?

You know there is a difference between opinion and fact.

An opinion is generally based on a subject or topic that people can actually view differently.
For example, It is my opinion that Obama is a good American President.
This is an opinion, for others may think differently on the topic.

Fact can not be associated with opinion, as it is using the word opinion in the incorrect sense.
For example, It is my opinion that 1+1=3.
This is NOT an opinion, but straight up fact. It is proven, and it can not be changed. Therefore, it must be fact rather than opinion.

I think you're confusing facts that are proven through evidence and facts that are true by definition. Like the OP said: "My opinion is that the world is flat. Is that not wrong?" Well, it's not true by definition like 1+1=3. It's something you support through evidence, the way you support "the earth is flat" through evidence.

The difference here is that "Obama is a good American President" and "the world is flat" is that there's more debate about what makes a 'good president' as opposed to a 'flat earth': in other words, the metric by which the evidence is assessed is in dispute.

Hmm...

Then this simply goes back to the basic fact that an opinion can never be wrong, just stupid as hell.

One could argue that the world is flat because of a bent perspective of earth through the atmosphere reaching our eyes, or something crazy like that, and it could be true, but that is just COULD. It would still sound like one of the most retarded things anyone has ever said, thus meaning that at the end of the day one retains his opinion, while also having an extremely high probability of being incorrect on it.

Could not all facts proven by evidence therefore be countered with the above claim?

 

[weirdaljedifan2]

So your telling me that if me and my friend are arguing whether or not Watchmen is better than District 9, it's better to argue until Armageddon about who's wrong or right rather than drop the conversation because of the fact that it really is base on taste and opinion?

Of course if the subject is any of that hot-button political crap than why would I be in that conversation in the first place?

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me.

 

[A.A.K]

-"I have the right to an opinion!"
-"And I have the right to think your opinion is stupid!"
An argument between myself and a girl about the Azaria Chamberlain case-she claimed the black and white picture was set in the day...even though the aboriginal tracker was wearing a woolen sweater.

-"Yea well i have the right to have an opinion!"
-"And if we're working that way, i have the right to an opinion to and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion!"
And that shuts up effectively everything thing and one else that ever says that to me.
I mean like once, someone said "Oh MY GOD you cant do that!" as to which i replied "Well apparently our opinion has instant strength and power into whatever we please so tell me, how strong is your opinion?"
and she went silent.




awwwwwww snap.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

I think you're confusing facts that are proven through evidence and facts that are true by definition. Like the OP said: "My opinion is that the world is flat. Is that not wrong?" Well, it's not true by definition like 1+1=3. It's something you support through evidence, the way you support "the earth is flat" through evidence.

The difference here is that "Obama is a good American President" and "the world is flat" is that there's more debate about what makes a 'good president' as opposed to a 'flat earth': in other words, the metric by which the evidence is assessed is in dispute.

Hmm...

Then this simply goes back to the basic fact that an opinion can never be wrong, just stupid as hell.

One could argue that the world is flat because of a bent perspective of earth through the atmosphere reaching our eyes, or something crazy like that, and it could be true, but that is just COULD. It would still sound like one of the most retarded things anyone has ever said, thus meaning that at the end of the day one retains his opinion, while also having an extremely high probability of being incorrect on it.

Could not all facts proven by evidence therefore be countered with the above claim?

Sure. That's the thing--once you say "an opinion can never be wrong, just stupid as hell" well, then no 'facts' are ever proven *right* or *wrong* by evidence and you're left in a world where you can't call anything unsound, but only invalid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_theory

Well, I actually do kind of believe that we live in a world where naught can be proven as fact. EVER.

This may sound like a foolish claim, but I personally believe that our ability as humans to understand the world we live in, and reality as a whole will never occur.

The reasoning for this is that at the end of the day, can humans prove ANYTHING at all? We can say that 1+1=2 with certainty, and I can except that as well... HOWEVER, perhaps in 10000 years, the laws of mathematics are skewed? What if 100000 years after that, 1+1=3, and everything we knew about mathematics is thrown into a sack, then the sack is thrown into a river, and the river is hurled into the sun? (cookie for reference )

The point is that perhaps we DO live in a reality where naught can be invalid, but ONLY unsound? 99.999999 percent of the time, fact, reasoning, and observation will allow for some unintelligent opinions to be denounced incorrect, and some more intelligent ones to be correct, or at least on the right track.

A good example of this would be Columbus. Back then, the world being flat was a given. Everyone thought it was true, and thinking that it was round was the equivalent of thinking that the world is flat today. That is, FOOLISH. However, through observation and reasoning, Columbus proved that the world was indeed round, and the world came to except that.

Now, bearing my previous example in mind, think about it. All we know and accept today may VERY well be incorrect! We can not know, and we can not ever know. Human reality, facts, opinions, validity and reasoning are all things we have invented, and utilize for daily conversation, debates, and discussion. I am not saying that everything we do is incorrect, or that we should stop seeing the world in the light that we do now, simply that as long as humans do not understand fully our concept of reality, we will NEVER be able to put ANYTHING in light as an INVALID, but ONLY as unsound, therefore meaning that in the end, an opinion can always exist.

Also, I understand that in an earlier post I stated that mathematical fact can not be unproven, but this is before I was exploring the topic at a deeper level.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Well, I actually do kind of believe that we live in a world where naught can be proven as fact. EVER.

This may sound like a foolish claim, but I personally believe that our ability as humans to understand the world we live in, and reality as a whole will never occur.

The reasoning for this is that at the end of the day, can humans prove ANYTHING at all? We can say that 1+1=2 with certainty, and I can except that as well... HOWEVER, perhaps in 10000 years, the laws of mathematics are skewed? What if 100000 years after that, 1+1=3, and everything we knew about mathematics is thrown into a sack, then the sack is thrown into a river, and the river is hurled into the sun? (cookie for reference )

1+1 will never = 3 as long as 'one' means what we mean by one, 'plus' means what we mean by plus, 'equals' means what we mean by equals, and 'two' and 'three' mean what we mean by two and three. These aren't matters of fact that we could be wrong about, they are relations of ideas.

 

[Nazulu]

So your telling me that if me and my friend are arguing whether or not Watchmen is better than District 9, it's better to argue until Armageddon about who's wrong or right rather than drop the conversation because of the fact that it really is base on taste and opinion?

Of course if the subject is any of that hot-button political crap than why would I be in that conversation in the first place?

I don't really understand what you're trying to tell me.

I think he is saying instead of just leaving it at "District 9 is better, thats just my opinion", the person should explain why it is better instead of just saying the stupid phrase and then the other person can explain why they are WRONG!

Unless you like a good argument, maybe it's best just to keep it on forums.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

Sure, but how many people who use the phrase "it's just my opinion" share that kind of skepticism bordering on solipsism?
In most cases, I think they just say it because they heard one time 'opinions can't be wrong'.
I brought this up in the thread a couple of days ago we had on opinions, and this seems as good a time as any to repeat it:



I've always thought this helped distinguish between 'emotional' opinions and other kinds of opinions.

Your claim makes sense, but I fear what I have attempted to say may have gotten a bit cloudy. It is my, and my own opinion that one can not prove or disprove anything that occurs or is observed in reality. As long as one believes that something is true to themselves, how can others understand that what he says is incorrect? This borrows on your claim of solipsism. How can any man, woman, child or entity understand exactly what goes through anothers mind?

I do not believe that there are no other minds, or that I am the only one with a "mind". However I do believe that understanding another persons mind fully and 100 percent is impossible. Therefore, without understanding how one thinks, or rationalizes a world, how can one denounce that what he says is true?

Perhaps all those who write "In my opinion" may feel like such deep down? It can't be known, but as long as those who state that line can THINK that what they say is true and the absolute truth, who can convince them otherwise? Nobody. As long as a will is strong (or twisted) enough, a perception of what is "true" and "false" can remain only in that persons mind.

People who were brought up normally, taught to rationalize the world by what it is and how it appears will take the norm, and roll with it. They will accept that 1+1=2, that the capital of the USA is Washington D.C, and so on.

So what I am trying to say is, that perhaps without being able to enter and view the world through others minds, how can we fully understand what is occurring in others minds, thus meaning that how a concept of "true" can be made? No matter how you put it to us, 1+1 will always equal 2. However, I'm almost certain that there is at least someone in this world who will constantly exclaim that 1+1 is in fact, 3. No matter how much you tell him, show him, and demonstrate to him, he will continue to denounce you. Why? Because what he sees in solid math is nonexistent to us, and without seeing what he sees, we can never know how his brain works.

Opinions can be treated in the same light. A 360 fanboy will exclaim that his 360 version of Team Fortress 2 is better than our PC version. We can explain that we have more maps, a better community, more weapons, and anything what we want. As long as this person is devout enough to except that his version is better, we will never understand WHY he could so positively think so until we dive into his mind to see what he sees.

Also, in your small skeptical/solipsism comment first off, I can be very trusting . Second, I don't think that my mind alone would be able to come up with TF2, Burn Notice, Metallica, Halo, as well as much more. I'm awesome, but I'm not THAT awesome.

 

[Bealzibob]

An opinion can never be wrong, as long as you can prove it's right...

The guy who says "1+1=3" is wrong, the guy who says "1+1=3, because I use my own mathmatical system in which 1+1 does actually equal 3" is technically right(though still sorta retarded) and no one can prove his opinion is wrong. He just can't prove anyone else's opinion is wrong using his opinion...

 

[magnuslion]

Because most opinions to be found on this and most other sites are formed either on 1. a subject that cannot be quantified or proven ((IE Halo 3 is the best game ever, etc ,etc)).
Or 2. with lack of all knowledge of the subject on the parts of both individuals, ((IE anyone who discusses a religion without having read its texts in its original languages)) then we must assume that all such opinions will not be entirely correct. therefor, everyone's half educated is equally valid.

 

[DracoSuave]

Everyone can hold an opinion.

'The earth is flat' =is= an opinion.

Wrong actually. An opinion by definition, cannot be proved wrong.

"An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence."

The reason 'Flat Earth' is an opinion is that, according to the evidence they accept, it points to a flat earth, but not enough to prove it.

If accepted evidences comes by later to change that, only then does it become a fact.

Yes, it -is- a manner of perspective. Facts are proven through evidence, but if the evidence is not believed, an opinion, a contrary opinion, can be formed.

Hense why the mentioning of an 'ignorant' opinion. They forge their opinion on the basis of willful ignorance and an unwillingness to seek the truth. Many conspiracy theorists actually hold the same pattern.

For example, the sky is pink in my opinion is wrong.[q/upte]

Well yes, for someone with sign can look up and have disproving evidence, thusly the statement is no longer an opinion.

A blind man, on the other hand, only has testimony. Therefore he -can- form an opinion in such a case.

Pink is a nice color IS an opinion because it varies from person to person and you can't disprove it.

You -can- potentially disprove an opinion, it merely means that the -evidence- to do so is not yet existant.

 

[Kurokami]

"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.

I disagree cause that's my opinion.

But seriously, didn't bother reading your thread I already know I agree, =]

 

[US Crash Fire]

everyone has the right to their opinion. just like you have the right to have an opinion about their opinion.

 

[crypt-creature]

Another phrase that I personally don't like

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Well then how would all those innovations and new better versions of what you have come into this world? Such as food. We wouldn't have our delicious stakes, bacon, pies and such if people didn't make them (or attempt) to make them better. Or video games. Do you really want to be stuck staring at Pong graphics?

Yay off topicness!

OT: I don't know how to disagree... You seem to be right :/

Sometimes an 'improvement' on something turns out to be worse than the thing it's supposed to replace.

Think of the DSi when compared to the DSlite.

That is a place where I can understand the term perfectly.