What Makes An Opinion "Valid"?

[Saelune]

It agrees with your opinion. Duh.
Lots of people do this on the right and left. And they're all twats because of it. They say that the other person's opinion is racist, sexist, infringing on their religious freedom, [insert buzzword used to silence dissent here]. The proper response is to ignore people who try to silence you for "wrong think". Frankly, they're the ones in the wrong. Even if you do think Hitler did nothing wrong, you still have the right to your opinion. And they have the right to ignore you, but they don't have the right to silence you.

Ah, but I'm a Freedom of Speech nut. I'd be fine with the KKK having a parade that goes by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I'd also be fine with any other group doing the same. My only requirement is that they don't get violent or incite violence.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

I will never accept that it is more fine for millions of Jews to die in the Holocaust than it is to silence racism. I will ever accept that an organization that lynched black people just because they dont like their skin color should be more protected than said black people.

Who cares what people think, its what people do, and people are doing these awful things, and I am not and never will be ok with that.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Being backed up by decisive evidence?

'Oxygen is good for you'. Can be backed up with medical science.

'2 plus 2 is 15'. Can be proven wrong using four of any item.

What is more controversial but more often-used is saying 'you believe in ____, therefore your opinion is invalid', calling all of someone's future judgements and opinions into question because they hold to one or more unpopular and/or provably wrong opinion. For example, if someone believes the world is flat, and disregards the mountains of evidence to the contrary, how much do you trust anything else they might say?

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Racism" has become such a bogeyman that uttering it seems to shut down thought altogether.

Statements along those lines are very commonly uttered, which in itself proves them wrong.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Let be honest, there are some arguments you're just not going to entertain. I'm not going to listen for a second of what Holocaust denier has to say, I'm just not going to. Fuck that guy.

 

[sanquin]

To me, an opinion is only invalid if someone can't back them up with proper logic and reasoning. Having facts back you up also helps a ton.

That being said, 90% (or nmore) of the time these days, people just say someone else's opinion is invalid to shut them down or to feel like they're superior and won the 'debate'. A cheap and invalid way of not having to explain oneself.

 

[Recusant]

Snip

When that actually happens, let me know. Because no one ever thinks about what you're talking about when they're talking about what's wrong with homosexuals. No one thinks about homosexuals not being able to reproduce, they talk about how they're "sinful" or "forcing their lifestyle on us." And no one talks about how black people are inferior because of vitamin D, it's because they're "savages." Hatred doesn't stem from logic either, but people keep pretending that it does, that their hatred is justified. Their reasoning is fucked and isn't worth treating with any levels of seriousness.

Yeah, it does. 8:50 PM in -5 EST. Or do you want another time zone?

It happens all time, you simply to need to ask. Hatred usually does stem from logic, just logic that's misapplied or based off of inaccurate information. The tribalistic bullshit that starts it makes complete sense, and got our species to the top of the heap; you can't just turn off your genetics when they become inconvenient. Those humans who didn't have a primal urge to defend what was theirs were killed off; they were inferior to the ones who did have that urge (and who, by and large, killed them).

And that's what you'll see if you talk to the homosexuality-decriers (not the ones mindlessly shouting slogans, the ones who'll actually talk to you about it): they don't just talk about "sin" and call things "unnatural", they're worried about their group- their town, their children, whatever- being corrupted. They see homosexuality as threatening that. Does it? Not really. But the instinct of "protect our people, our land, and our resources" is not outdated, and it's certainly not "fuckheaded"; it's perfectly sound reasoning, applied way too liberally to something that's not a threat. Hell, it's not even unreasonable- would you want your kids to grow up homosexual and have to face all the bullshit that gay people have to? Good reasoning based on bad information doesn't cease to be good.

There is much fuckheadedness in the world, though, and here's a demonstration: I did want another time zone, specifically, yours. You're not on Eastern standard time. You're on Eastern daylight time, and will be for another three days. Daylight Saving Time is a program designed to save energy, which probably did fulfill its original purpose a hundred years ago when it was first implemented. But consumption patterns have changed considerably in the past century, and now the program increases energy consumption. So far, so typical: legislative inertia combined with social inertia is a hard combo to beat. But it hasn't been left alone; I wouldn't've asked you the time if we'd been having this conversation twelve years ago. The program was expanded in 2005 to cover a longer stretch of time. The new policy was to save energy by using more of it. Unless this was some sort of overly subtle reverse psychology, there's no explanation that's not fuckheaded, save "the candy lobby gave me a dumptruck full of money and a lifetime supply of Snickers"- and that only works if you're Fred Upton. Ask people why they change their clocks twice a year, increasing energy consumption and disrupting their sleep patterns (which kills a few thousand people that first week), and at best, you'll get an incoherent mumbled reply about farmers, who base their schedules around the sun, and are annoyed by changing market hours. To accept something, even something profoundly stupid, that's been going on since before your granparents were born is one thing. To see it expanded and not even question why? That's pretty fuckheaded. As is...

"Racism" has become such a bogeyman that uttering it seems to shut down thought altogether.

Statements along those lines are very commonly uttered, which in itself proves them wrong.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you claiming that a thought, once stopped, cannot be restarted, or that only one conversation ever takes place? By that logic, the statement "stop signs frequently shut down the forward movement of cars" is proof that stop signs don't exist- after all, cars are still moving along the roads.

It takes thought to have a conversation. It does not take thought to scream slogans back and forth at one another, which accusations of racism often cause conversations to degrade into. The common utterance of "this statement is not commonly uttered" would disprove itself. I made no such assertion or anything like it.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

That's basically what I said, people like to think that they're logical when they're being hateful. I don't consider conclusions made from bad sources to be logical, as the point of being logical is to check your sources and your information. I didn't say that you could just turn off your genetics, but acting on primal urges is hardly what I'd call logical, particularly from a modern perspective where good portions of the world puts a lot of vale on logic.

And the difference between children being corrupted and their lifestyle being forced on them, which I mentioned, is not a huge difference to me. Really, it comes off as hair splitting. I'm sorry, protect our resources? This is just a nitpick, but why bring that up? Or are their some people that really think the gays want to steal all the oil? And "defend our land" isn't fuckheaded? Speaking as an American who has seen a lot of stupid shit done in the name of defense, including signing in the Patriot Act, something that gives the government free reign to step all over the rights of citizens, I beg to differ. Mindsets don't exist in a vacuum. "Defend our land" is not always a good mindset or always a bad one, it needs context. And in the context of homosexuals "corrupting" people, it's a very flawed and particularly fuckheaded mindset. I'm sorry, when people are talking about their kid being "corrupted" I have a hard time accepting that it's just parents who don't want their kid being discriminated against. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong if you have a source about this, but the sheer fact that it's being called corrupted makes the parents sound like they have a problem with the homosexuality in general. Something supported by the depressingly high number of homeless LGBT youth, which is around 40% with the main cause being family rejection. There's no good reasoning going on here, not when countless teens are being rendered homeless as a result and good information is more easily accessible than ever.

https://thinkprogress.org/study-40-percent-of-homeless-youth-are-lgbt-family-rejection-is-leading-cause-a2aaa72c414a#.e1tcgnqra

Oh, that's what you were on about. Just one problem with that. A lot of people around here, me included, agree that it is stupid. So...yeah.

 

[hermes]

Of course opinions can be invalid. If they are not logical or are not informed, then they are invalid.

We are too used to live in a time were anyone can say anything about anything. That doesn't mean I have to pay attention to anything anyone says... If I want to have an opinion on the latest debate on string theory based only on my guts, then that opinion is not valid.

 

[FalloutJack]

Something morally or factually right, or both.

When you make a statement based upon realistic standards, good or bad, your opinion follows a logical course where others can see where you are coming from. When you make a statement based upon whether something has a positive or negative effect on things, and why this is right or wrong, you are making a commentary on the standard of things that is either being given justice or not.

An example of something morally and factually right would be for me to say that I'm personally glad I've never touched No Mutants Allowed, as they make fans of the Fallout franchise look really bad, especially when the games themselves are pretty good.

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

Nothing, really. If you're of the opinion that bananas taste better than strawberries there's nothing other than your own taste buds to validate your opinion. If someone holds the opinion that a particular race is inferior, or superior, there is no need for them to validate their opinion. It's only when opinion suddenly becomes fact that validation becomes necessary.

 

[CaitSeith]

Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth.

Citation needed. Otherwise you're trying to pass your opinion as a factual premise in this discussion.

 

[Glongpre]

You are assuming those who are wrong are being harassed or bullied.
There are clear cases where opinions are wrong factually, morally, ethically, etc.
You can listen to their perspective, but there is no way for them to persuade you regardless, because they are wrong.
I can listen to someone say 1+1=4, but that won't change the fact that 1+1=2.

Your way of judging opinions would be a great detriment to finding any knowledge at all, because you would never say anything is wrong, and the discussion would go nowhere.

No, you can have a valid opinion whilst being completely wrong. If you attempt to say that an opinion is invalid because the facts are wrong, well, short of a hard and fact physical law, or video evidence and a signed confession, they can all be debated / open to interpretation. If you say that an opinion is invalid morally, that's even worse because all morals and morality are subjective. Same with ethics.

Being of an invalid opinion and being wrong are not the same thing. A valid opinion is arguable, even if you don't like the argument / think it is a weak argument. All of scientific progress is based on theories / findings being presented to be opposed with counter-evidence / counter-theories. All of the opinions put forward during the process are valid opinions, it's up to the collective community to decide what is the collectively accepted theory at that time. Just because some opinions ultimately happen to be wrong does not mean that their opinion was not a valid one to have at that point in time, given the evidence to hand.

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

Valid - (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

My opinion is that white people are the master race, and that all other races are lesser.
You would say this is a valid opinion??

 

[KissingSunlight]

Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth.

Citation needed. Otherwise you're trying to pass your opinion as a factual premise in this discussion.

Try a dictionary.

o-pin-ion
[əˈpinyən]

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

 

[Catnip1024]

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

Valid - (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

My opinion is that white people are the master race, and that all other races are lesser.
You would say this is a valid opinion??

Well, it depends if you have an argument to back it up.

DISCLAIMER - following statements for the sake of the discussion only, as an example of how one could back up such an argument. Don't shout at me, people.

You could for instance point out statistics regarding the proportion of white people as CEOs, leading politicians, etc, and juxtapose that with statistics for minorities in jail. Whilst this is generally regarded as a sign of discrimination, it could be argued as evidence that white people are better. It is logical, if not necessarily correct.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I want to thank everyone who have posted so far.

I can see a lot of people are confusing the words "opinions" and "facts". It's almost as bad as people who use "literally" to mean they mean "figuratively". I also see a lot of people confusing "opinions" with "argument". An argument is a combination of opinions and facts. Yes, an argument can be invalid. If the facts are untrue.

What I feel what people are saying, "If I disagree with you, then I should be able to voice my disagreement in the harshest way possible. The appropriate way to do so would be to say that your opinions are meaningless and therefore should not be considered valid."

If you feel that opinion is not "valid". Feel free to correct me.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Valid assumes an appeal to find consensus or discuss its parameters. If the hypothetical statement or example draws consideration as to its merit, or the structure of its circumstance, then it's 'valid' as far as I care. I remember dwelling on this a bit back when I was teaching. Class discussions often (and should) evolve far beyond the premise for which I started it, but it only became invalid when time, or the premise that started the discussion, didn't allow for any more traction on the initial ideas that should be contemplated.

As some random poster said before, 1+1=2 is a valid statement, it's not a valid question as much as; "But why can't it be 1+1=4?"

You could argue the validity of an opinion is notable a metaphysical exploration that precedes a statement. Given that a philosophical argument can operate on diametrically opposed universal constants concerning whether or not there is free will or whether the universe is deterministic or not, 'valid' is solely in terms of the initial premise.

 

[The Lunatic]

All opinions are equally baseless and invalid.

That's kinda the point of opinions.

 

[Recusant]

Snip

That's basically what I said, people like to think that they're logical when they're being hateful. I don't consider conclusions made from bad sources to be logical, as the point of being logical is to check your sources and your information.

If you can't make good reasoning from bad information, then what's the difference between a logical process and the information it starts with? If you take the production line of the Lego factory, which, being almost entirely automated, has an error rate of something like one in a couple hundred million, and stick subpar plastic in the intake valves, you're going to wind up with a shoddy final product, but that's not the fault of the production line. These people don't just think they're being logical- they are. But the information is bad. As a thought exercise, replace "gays" (or "blacks" or "Mexicans" or what have you) with "ISIS". These people are mis- (or under-) informed; not "fuckheaded".

And the difference between children being corrupted and their lifestyle being forced on them, which I mentioned, is not a huge difference to me. Really, it comes off as hair splitting. I'm sorry, protect our resources? This is just a nitpick, but why bring that up? Or are their some people that really think the gays want to steal all the oil? And "defend our land" isn't fuckheaded?

Let's make use of logic, then. No, gays aren't coming to still our oil; they're coming to indoctrinate our children and make them like them. This is primate-brain stuff, here: children are a resource. It's not just about continuing your personal genetic line, it's about the continuation of the tribe. And no, "defend our land" is not fuckheaded. It's the opposite of fuckheaded; if you can't see the point of protecting your territory... well, go ask the Syrians about it. A fuckheaded result is not necessarily (and indeed, not in this case) the result of bad reasoning- just bad data. The gays aren't a threat- but if they were, treating them as a threat is reasonable.

Stupid things are done in the name of territorial defense; no one on Earth would dispute that. But that can't be your threshold of "this is fuckheaded"; show one one worthwhile thing this world has ever known that hasn't had stupid things done in its name.

I'm sorry, when people are talking about their kid being "corrupted" I have a hard time accepting that it's just parents who don't want their kid being discriminated against. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong if you have a source about this, but the sheer fact that it's being called corrupted makes the parents sound like they have a problem with the homosexuality in general. Something supported by the depressingly high number of homeless LGBT youth, which is around 40% with the main cause being family rejection. There's no good reasoning going on here, not when countless teens are being rendered homeless as a result and good information is more easily accessible than ever.

I don't think you understood what I said. These people are worried about their children becoming homosexual. That is the threat; it is what they have a problem with. Also, the article you linked says that it's 40% of the homeless that are GLBT, not the other way around; you want to make that clearer. It also says that the main reason (though only by a few percentage points) is running away. The distinction may seem overly fine, but look closer: it's not being kicked out, it's fear of retribution. People doing stupid things out of (ultimately) fear... now where have we heard that before?

Consider a parallel: you wouldn't let an angry bear into the playpen with your hypothetical child, would you? It's not the presence of the bear you're afraid of; it's your child being horribly injured or killed. But you still won't let the bear in. Would you call a parent "fuckheaded" for not letting the bear into their child's playpen? Black people bears? Gay people aren't bea- okay, bad example, but you see what I'm saying. They're not a threat, but if they were, caution would be warranted.

Don't think I'm defending these actions as justified. I find them reprehensible. But it's a problem fought by education, not by dismissing people as being "fuckheaded" because their starting information was bad.

https://thinkprogress.org/study-40-percent-of-homeless-youth-are-lgbt-family-rejection-is-leading-cause-a2aaa72c414a#.e1tcgnqra
Oh, that's what you were on about. Just one problem with that. A lot of people around here, me included, agree that it is stupid. So...yeah.

That has nothing to do with what I said. People do terrible things to each other for stupid reasons; I've never in my life disputed that. But a whole lot of people around Topeka agree that homosexuality, and tolerating it, are stupid. Numbers don't make you right any more than logic does.

 

[FalloutJack]

All opinions are equally baseless and invalid.

That's kinda the point of opinions.

Which means that this statement is false because you made an opinion.

I'll never understand why people treat this as an all-or-nothing sort of thing.

 

[The Lunatic]

Which means that this statement is false because you made an opinion.

I'll never understand why people treat this as an all-or-nothing sort of thing.

It's almost as if people are allowed opinions on opinions.