People do not have a right to their own opinions.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The title is intentionally inflammatory so people will read my thread. :)

 

The impetus for this discussion came from something somebody said to me at work a few days ago "Every one has the right to their own opinions," in the context of getting on to me for blowing up at someone who said some pretty hateful things about gays.

 

And it got me thinking - Do they? In a certain sense, yes, of course they do - you can think whatever you want. That your car runs on unicorn farts and pixie dust and not the highly processed remains of ancient animals, for instance.

 

You are able to believe any damn fool thing you wish. Does that mean that I have to respect your opinion? Is the person who says that all Muslims/Gays/Shiites/People named Fred should be wiped of the face of the earth entitled to their troglodyte opinions?

 

Is there a line where people do NOT have a right to their own opinions? Or at least a line where people's opinions are so ridiculous that they can be justly dismissed. It's been demonstrated repeatedly (to my mind) that there is no idea so stupid that somebody won't believe it.

 

Even if we accept that there are certain beliefs that you just can't hold, how do we determine what the difference is between something that we can all safely just ignore (like the telepathic bigfoot people or something) and something that is actually dangerous?

 

To my mind you have the right to HOLD any opinion you desire. But you do not have the right to have it RESPECTED. You can't demand respect for your opinion based alone on the fact that it happens to be your opinion. If your opinion is not coherent, defensible, and ethical, I don't have to leave you be. Racists in particular come to mind here. But who decides what is "coherent, defensible, and ethical." Obviously people who believe idiotic things like phrenology or something don't consider their belief incoherent.

 

Where is the line drawn. On the one hand, it is clear to me that there are some opinions that you do NOT have the right too. On the other hand, I have no idea how to determine what those opinions are. And on the gripping hand, what if THIS opinion is not an acceptable opinion?

 

TFS

[Monomer]

The thing is that in this Post-Modern world in which we live basically anything goes, despite how crazy it is. Everyone has their opinions and we have to respect that. So they say...

 

I agree that not all opinions are to be respected, especially when it is not beneficial to society as a whole. I don't think it's a good thing to attack another person's character/beliefs/ideas, and I would not respect a person or their opinions in that situation. The problem these days is that everyone is just looking out for themselves, and this mindset has been encouraged by this crazy post-modernism.

 

Lines should be drawn so that people are protected and supported, and communities are built up and sustained and nurtured. I think we all know deep down what is "coherent, defensible, and ethical." We need to be open minded but also reasonable.

[Boerseun]

Lines should be drawn so that people are protected and supported, and communities are built up and sustained and nurtured.

Protected and supported in terms of what? Nazism, for instance, was an excellent ideology for protection and support if you happened to be a blond blue-eyed German, a good Aryan. But it kinda sucked if your name was Blumenthal. I suppose each and every ideology imaginable has a payoff and a penalty, depending where you find yourself in the population make-up.

But walk down the road with nazi banners, and see where that gets you. That's an example of an opinion that everybody frowns upon, regardless of the <GASP! SHOCK! HORROR!> good things the nazis did in Germany, before the war. I'm thinking here of the Autobahn, as a simple example of greatness achieved by the nazis - in the 1930's, Germany was the world's leader in highway construction, amongst other things. This was a mere decade or two after being obliterated in WW1. Hang on a minute, I'm not a nazi!!! I'm just saying that in discussing nazism, we tend to focus solely on their opinion of the Jews, and tend to ignore anything else they did. Nazis are judged by their hatred of Jewry and nothing else.

 

Is this right? Is this balanced? Does nazism have anything to add in our understanding of international economics/public management etc.? We investigate the concept of nazis, and we never get any further than the iron gates of Auswich, or the crazy guy at the helm.

 

But walk down the street with nazi banners, and you will see that people indeed have a right to their own opinion, up to a certain point. And that point (public understanding of nazism being solely about eliminating Jews, as an example) might not always be a fair opposing view. Kinda like anything smelling like communism being a no-go under McCarthy, regardless of the merits of it. It's hard to say where the line begins and ends, though.

I think we all know deep down what is "coherent, defensible, and ethical." We need to be open minded but also reasonable.

I don't actually think we do, though. What is coherent, defensible and ethical to you, might be offensive and unethical to me. A look at the world's religions and political systems should illustrate my point easily.

 

And no, I'm not a nazi, before anyone goes off on a tangent...

[Turtle]

The title is intentionally inflammatory so people will read my thread. :xparty:

 

TFS

 

Well! I never! In my opinion, you have crossed the line this time Loyal Rock. :singer:

[Buffy]

Everyone has the right to have my opinion.

 

That line was intentionally inflammatory so people will read my post. :xparty:

 

I've always believed that everyone does have a right to have any opinion, but that they should not expect to have protection from the consequences of proselytizing that opinion.

 

This has some interesting consequences: Galileo had a very unpopular opinion and was punished for it, even though his "opinion" turned out to be right. Discretion is the better part of valor.

 

Opinions vary on whether homosexuality is bad or normal, and while everyone hates it "don't ask, don't tell" works (although the DoD seems to be on a witch hunt these days, despite the urgent need for bodies). Going along to get along means fewer people are hurt and we get more done.

 

People with truly vile opinions like that Hitler dude need to be contained or eliminated, and the sooner the better. It was monumentally offensive to Hitler to send Jesse Owens to the Berlin Olympics, but not even the most strident Political Correctness Police would have said "he should stay home because we don't want to offend anyone." Some opinions do deserve in-your-face challenges in response.

 

Buffy's Fourth Law of Human Interaction: No action is without consequences.

 

Lets be careful out there, :singer:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

... said to me... Every one has the right to their own opinions... And it got me thinking - Do they?

It doens't even get into rights. Everyone HAS their own opinion. Case closed. In terms of rights, there are certain natural rights with which all life is endowed, but the parameters of these vary based on the observers opinion. The rights, however, are there.

 

You are able to believe any damn fool thing you wish.

Absolutely. ;)

 

Does that mean that I have to respect your opinion?

Absolutely not. :omg:

 

Is the person who says that all Muslims/Gays/Shiites/People named Fred should be wiped of the face of the earth entitled to their troglodyte opinions?

While it's sometimes unfortunate, and I wildly disagree with their stance, yes... they are entitled to it, as well as the consequences that come with it.

 

 

Is there a line where people do NOT have a right to their own opinions?

Not really, not if it's just opinion. It's when that opinion motivates action that the line where their rights cease becomes more clear. Also, it's really when those opinions are SHARED with others that they result in problems such as those you're exploring...

 

...Or at least a line where people's opinions are so ridiculous that they can be justly dismissed... Where is the line drawn?

You've essentially answered your own question. This "line" is not a straight one, nor does it leap out at every observer. It's a zig-zagging, s-curving, recedingly growing dynamic CONCEPT... And the definition of that concept is context dependent.

 

In one group, OpinionA may be absolutely accepted without refute, but travel to another group and OpinionA couldn't be farther from the truth (another conceptual opinion...).

 

Just like one man's trash is another man's treasure, one groups opposition is another's acceptance. The right is socially provided, and, hence, socially withdrawn, but the opinion itself tends to remain the same.

 

 

Cheers, TFS. :cup:

 

 

BTW Boerseun... quit being such a nazi. :lol:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Not really, not if it's just opinion. It's when that opinion motivates action that the line where their rights cease becomes more clear. Also, it's really when those opinions are SHARED with others that they result in problems such as those you're exploring...

 

Is there a time where an opinion DOESN'T motivate action? So, the person in my example says something like "Man I hate those **king faggots." (I get pissed off just thinking about it.)

 

If it's fine for him to say that, obviously NOT fine for him to beat up gay people on the street. Is it okay for him to vote against equal rights for gays? It's certainly arguable that it causes harm.

 

Everyone has the right to have my opinion.

 

That line was intentionally inflammatory so people will read my post.

 

Worked too.

 

I think people conflate the notion of "having their opinion" and me "respecting their opinion."

 

It was certainly the intent in the aforementioned example - that I needed to keep my mouth shut about other people's opinions. The example is contentious - but would they have had the same reaction to "Man I hate those **king skirts." or "Man I hate those **king Jews?"

 

It seems that the phrase "Everyone has a right to their opinions" is rhetorical shorthand for "You're wrong, and I don't want to talk to you anymore."

 

TFS

[hallenrm]

It appears dear TFS that you are flaming with rage. You need to learn to cool down a bit. May I suggest that you read the article linked below, it might help you control your anger, which is not very healthy. Ask me, I used to get angry like you some months ago! ;)

 

http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/anger.html

[TheFaithfulStone]

Silly internet and lack of context.

 

I'm actually not angry at all about it anymore. Certainly I am not "flaming with rage."

 

:hyper: <- See all happy.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

TFS. I feel like I might get slapped if I say this again (because even I tire of saying it and would probably get tired of someone saying it).

 

In philosophy vs religion, I asked a similar question. Can someone invent a new religion and say that it demands them to do whatever they want to do? The government protects religious freedom, but how far does that go? Particularly when it comes to giving tax credits and what not to "donations" made to such a church.

I honestly don't know, but in today's modern world it seems that anything goes.

 

You know what the ironic thing is. This is also tied to the PC goes too far thread.

 

The other day when the two black men were interviewed on the today show after Michael Richards blew up at them, one of them said, "People shouldn't be allowed to think that way anymore."

 

I died laughing, because of course, if people had had that attitude 140 years ago, or even just 35 years ago, black people still wouldn't have the right to vote or eat or drink wherever a white man told them they couldn't. Because people wouldn't have been allowed to think that a black man had any rights.

 

You take the good with the bad as long as you are still breathing.

[IDMclean]

Basically, you are allowed to do what you will until it hurts a person enough for them to go through what is called the "due process". At which point, you end up in court for discrimination against X, harassment, and in some cases Assault and/or Battery. Assuming that the class of action is not protected against, a person who is really hurt, or a group of people whom are similarly hurt can take their complaint to up the systems and make that class of action inadmissible in law.

 

Then they get to take you to court.

 

That is:

You are entitled to have whatever you would allow another person to have.

You are entitled to do whatever you would allow another person to do.

If your going to be hateful, discriminating violent person, then guess what?

 

Your pretty much allowed to do what you wish, so long as it does no harm.

Your allowed to hold an opinion, and express it. Just keep in mind that expressing a plot to assassinate the president of the united states is a good way to get into trouble. Just like expressing lewd thoughts about a co-worker is a good way to get into trouble also.

 

So yes you are free to say what you will, and do what you will. Hold any opinion, evade taxes, make explosives, and kill people. Should you? No. Will you take action and escape reaction? Probably not. That is you are likewise free, and entitled to your consequences, and in some cases consequences of others.

 

[sebbysteiny]

I have a simple solution to this apparent paradox. Perhaps it is too simplistic.

 

But it comes from 2 principals.

 

1) Everybody has a right to their own opinions.

 

No this is implied by obvious necessity. Just because people have their own opinions does not mean they have a right to it any more than saying just because people do murder, they have a right to it.

 

People throughout history have been persecuted for their opinions. Thankfully that has stopped. It is an official human right.

 

It is also true that having a right to opinion does not mean it must be respected.

 

2) Everybody has a right to freedom of speech but this is subject to exceptions. Incitement to racial hatred is one such exception.

 

If you think about it, almost all the time, somebody with bad opinions will be caught by the exception in 2. How do we know that person has those opinions? Answer, he must have talked about or otherwise demonstrated them. Thus, he loses his absolute protections under freedom of thought and has to rely on the more limited protections under freedom of speech.

 

So KickAssClown, your friend can be condemned for his inflamitory speech, rather than his thoughts.

[Pyrotex]

The title is intentionally inflammatory so people will read my thread. :hihi:...

I was in a seminar once, one of those "understand yourself and become more effective" things, when a person in the audience responded to the leader by saying, "Hey, everybody has a right to their own opinions!"

 

The leader said, "You do not have opinions. Your opinions have you."

 

That was 15 years ago, and the longer I live, the more I realize that this may be true. Whenever I hear someone express their opinions in such a way that further discussion is impossible, I see that that person has become a helpless victim of their opinions, a mere puppet with the opinion pulling all the strings.

 

"There's someone in my head but it's not me."

[cwes99_03]

I would say that is a cyclical truth. You have your opinions (philosophies) and you live your life in accord with them. Because you live your life in accord with them, you are likely not to change many of them, because you live your life in accord with them.

 

Basically all you said is that most people's opinions oppose change.

[Zythryn]

The leader said, "You do not have opinions. Your opinions have you."

 

That sounds like a good definition for Wisdom.

Those that have opinions, have wisdom.

Those people that are owned by their opinions do not.

[cwes99_03]

Wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge. It is not whether or not you posses opinions. Opinionated is whether or not you posses opinions.

[hallenrm]

........ most people's opinions oppose change.

Wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge.

 

Those are truism of sorts!

 

It is not whether or not you posses opinions.

Opinionated is whether or not you posses opinions.

 

Show me a person bereft of any opinions. ;)