Viewpoints
Here's a post I just made on another forum. Discuss. Or not.
I get really, really frustrated with the attitude -- which seems to be common these days -- that every opinion is as good as any other. I don't think that's true. Some opinions are more carefully thought out than others -- and those are not as good as the carefully-thought-out ones. Some opinions start with priors that I consider unacceptable (that women are inferior than men, for example, although few people would state that flat-out these days). Some opinions ignore facts that disagree with them (or worse, claim that these facts are obviously untrue despite solid evidence to the contrary.) Those opinions are, to my mind, not as good. :shrug: Call me elitist, but there it is.
Anyway, this is what I posted.
*********************************************
Frankly, I disagree that we're required to respect every viewpoint equally. What we're required to do is to be polite to people whose viewpoints differ from ours. However, being polite to them isn't the same as respecting their viewpoint.
You know the saying, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out?" An intelligent person is obliged to consider other viewpoints besides their own: both to modify their own viewpoint when necessary, and because reasonable debates are impossible otherwise.
That doesn't mean an intelligent person is obliged to accept any and all viewpoints that happen to cross their path as being equally good. (That's the "don't let your brains fall out" point.)
It's very easy to forget that reasonable people can see the same data and come to different conclusions: you feel like, if a person disagrees with you, then obviously either (1) they haven't considered your viewpoint, because if they did they would have to agree with it or (2) they're just stupid. (I certainly don't claim that I don't have a problem remembering this, too.)
This works both ways. It means we need to remember that the people we disagree with us may reasonable people, too (I mean, they may not be, but just because they disagree with us is not reason, in and of itself, to believe they're unreasonable). It also means we need to remember that just because a person continues to disagree with us after we've argued with them, it doesn't mean that they're not listening to our arguments. Often in these sorts of debates I see people throwing around accusations like, "You're obviously not willing to consider any viewpoint other than your own" when what's actually meant is, "I've argued and argued and you still don't agree with me!" :-)
Personally... it's not that I don't respect any opposing viewpoints. It's that there are some viewpoints I don't respect... not because I'm not willing to consider them, but because I've considered them and decided they were not respectable. I don't respect bigotry. I don't respect wanting to violate the separation of church and state in the United States. I don't respect violating people's civil liberties without a clearly demonstrable benefit to society greater than the violation. I don't respect a lack of compassion for the less fortunate -- regardless of whether it's coming from a liberal or a conservative. (Likewise, I respect compassion whether it's coming from a liberal or a conservative, although personally the liberal approaches to social justice are the ones I agree with.)
That doesn't mean that there aren't people I like and (overall) respect as people who have one of these viewpoints... no one is perfect, after all. (Those people doubtless feel the same about me and my viewpoints!) But respect the viewpoint itself... that's a different story.
I mean, I could meet a guy who thinks all the problems with the economy are because of manipulations of aliens softening up the Earth for invasion. I might respect him as a person for other reasons, and I respect his right to have that viewpoint (it's a free country) but... dude. Aliens. That's nuts. I don't have to accept his viewpoint as just as reasonable and valid as any other -- at least, not unless he has a really, really good argument to back it up.
I get really, really frustrated with the attitude -- which seems to be common these days -- that every opinion is as good as any other. I don't think that's true. Some opinions are more carefully thought out than others -- and those are not as good as the carefully-thought-out ones. Some opinions start with priors that I consider unacceptable (that women are inferior than men, for example, although few people would state that flat-out these days). Some opinions ignore facts that disagree with them (or worse, claim that these facts are obviously untrue despite solid evidence to the contrary.) Those opinions are, to my mind, not as good. :shrug: Call me elitist, but there it is.
Anyway, this is what I posted.
*********************************************
Frankly, I disagree that we're required to respect every viewpoint equally. What we're required to do is to be polite to people whose viewpoints differ from ours. However, being polite to them isn't the same as respecting their viewpoint.
You know the saying, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out?" An intelligent person is obliged to consider other viewpoints besides their own: both to modify their own viewpoint when necessary, and because reasonable debates are impossible otherwise.
That doesn't mean an intelligent person is obliged to accept any and all viewpoints that happen to cross their path as being equally good. (That's the "don't let your brains fall out" point.)
It's very easy to forget that reasonable people can see the same data and come to different conclusions: you feel like, if a person disagrees with you, then obviously either (1) they haven't considered your viewpoint, because if they did they would have to agree with it or (2) they're just stupid. (I certainly don't claim that I don't have a problem remembering this, too.)
This works both ways. It means we need to remember that the people we disagree with us may reasonable people, too (I mean, they may not be, but just because they disagree with us is not reason, in and of itself, to believe they're unreasonable). It also means we need to remember that just because a person continues to disagree with us after we've argued with them, it doesn't mean that they're not listening to our arguments. Often in these sorts of debates I see people throwing around accusations like, "You're obviously not willing to consider any viewpoint other than your own" when what's actually meant is, "I've argued and argued and you still don't agree with me!" :-)
Personally... it's not that I don't respect any opposing viewpoints. It's that there are some viewpoints I don't respect... not because I'm not willing to consider them, but because I've considered them and decided they were not respectable. I don't respect bigotry. I don't respect wanting to violate the separation of church and state in the United States. I don't respect violating people's civil liberties without a clearly demonstrable benefit to society greater than the violation. I don't respect a lack of compassion for the less fortunate -- regardless of whether it's coming from a liberal or a conservative. (Likewise, I respect compassion whether it's coming from a liberal or a conservative, although personally the liberal approaches to social justice are the ones I agree with.)
That doesn't mean that there aren't people I like and (overall) respect as people who have one of these viewpoints... no one is perfect, after all. (Those people doubtless feel the same about me and my viewpoints!) But respect the viewpoint itself... that's a different story.
I mean, I could meet a guy who thinks all the problems with the economy are because of manipulations of aliens softening up the Earth for invasion. I might respect him as a person for other reasons, and I respect his right to have that viewpoint (it's a free country) but... dude. Aliens. That's nuts. I don't have to accept his viewpoint as just as reasonable and valid as any other -- at least, not unless he has a really, really good argument to back it up.