So I'm in several discussions online at the moment, and in most of them, someone has asserted their right to their opinion as a reason to continue holding said opinion.
I don't get that.
I mean, sure, we all have the right to hold whatever opinions we want to, but having the right to believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nostrils of the Great Green Arklesiezure does not make that belief a logically valid one.
Or maybe a better example would be one that it more provable.
How about this one--it's pretty extreme, but it demonstrates what I'm trying to talk about: I have the right to hold the opinion that eggs don't break when you drop them. I base this opinion on having dropped an egg on a pillow one time, and the egg remaining intact. My discussion partner presents many arguments for his position that eggs do break when you drop them, including his own experience, a statistical study, film footage of eggs breaking after being dropped, and so forth. My reply? "I have the right to my opinion."
Doesn't this kind of thing sound like shorthand for, "I'm going to hold my opinion in spite of being shown that my opinion is incorrect?"
Yes. Welcome to the world of online debating.
More like....I'm unwilling to learn anything new because I know everything. (I got the same impression in a recent online discussion)
I believe that is what is referred to as 'moving the goalposts' in the discussion.
In my time here; that's all I've seen. People making crazy statements and sticking to them, with pride and glory! You handle yourself very well on the forums. It shouldn't bother you.
Because it's normal for an egg to break when you drop it.
For it to NOT break is out of the norm and depends on contrived circumstances.
Nice to see that you CHOSE to pick only certain things from Jeff's OP.
Indeed it was very nice of me!
I ...COULD HAVE....said he had no right to talk about the Creator as some "great green" sneezing thing.....but I exercised my right to actually have a go at answering the main ingredient of his argument. And did so with a measure of simplicity and truth that's quite uncommon, dontcha think? Or not, knowing you!
Brenda, my point was that you overlooked a piece of information, which is just like you. If you are not sure, then I would suggest you re-read the OP over again.
Sorry Cagsil, but I'm not in the mood for debating at the moment. I said what needed saying. Just 'cause it was too simplistic for you isn't my fault. Keeping it simple by recognizing basic right and wrong would cut down on a LOT of the debate spoken of in the OP. But carry on to your little heart's content!
You know Brenda, I get it and your sad answer was not too simplistic at all, it was completely foolish.
Eggs do not break, everytime they are dropped. The point YOU missed, was that Jeff said that he dropped an Egg on a "PILLOW".
Are you blind? Or Only READ what you want?
So, take your comment and explanation. And, go pray to your god.
Well, being as you are sticking to the opinion that you answered the main part of it then I hope you don't mind my saying this------- You may be the main point of it ------- unless you can show me proof that you are not one of those this is my opinion right or wrong I'm sticking to it people
Oh, I do apologize, Brenda, if I offended you by talking about the Great Green Arklesiezure. It never occurred to me that anybody would actually believe in a joke from a Douglas Adams book as a Creator.
As opposed to the perfectly rational god who becomes his own son and murders himself to save humanity from the sin they are born into because the rib woman was convinced by the talking snake to eat a piece of fruit?
I firmly believe the universe was vomited by a giant Star Goat and - I have proof.
Yeah, it does.
I recently read a book which had a passage where the author defined "ignorance" as holding firm to your own opinion in the face of irrefutable evidence that proved that opinion wrong.
Can anyone tell anyone how an opinion is correct? In my opinion dogs are better then cats. To a cat lover, my love for dogs more than cats is ignorant. The cat lover would probably argue that I just don't know enough about cats to hold that opinion as correct.
I would then just say, doesn't matter. Even if cats could fly cars I would still think dogs are better than cats because that is my opinion.
I would say the cat/dog lover just isn't enlightened enough to know everyone has their own preferences. (actually, I have said it! lol because I'm a cat lover)
(how many dogs do you have? I have 4 cats)
It depends on what you define as "better". In that case, it's too vague.
It sounds to me that you both have too much time on your hands. Kiss and make up. You can, indeed, have a compromise. Both of you sit down and have an omelet. That way you can both agree that an egg HAS broke which now provides you nourishment.
clearly its simple
somebody has always got to be right
in and out of here
so the battle continues
have a nice day
good one Jeff.
there is no rhyme or reason to religious discussions. even if there was a grand YouTube video in the sky showing the Big Bang (or even Earth being created by robots), some people still would not believe their own eyes. that is because they have faith, and part of being faithful is not allowing anyone or anything to sway your faith in your God. i personally don't think they resist because they want to be right.
p.s. i don't give a lot of credence to statistics and studies, only because they conflict each other often or contain crunchy numbers.
I reject evolution..
LHC is failed..
Synthetic Life is impossible..
There is no word manipulation of bible..
Yes, we all have a right to an opinion. However, in order for a useful discussion to take place, one must have their facts straight and a full understanding of the facts. Being open-minded about alternate views based on other factors you may not have considered is also essential.
Being dogmatic in your opinions is pointless if you don't understand the underlying concept that your opinion is based on.
Still, that's just my opinion
could you pleae Try to sound like you know what you're talking about and can show that you have taken the time to have considered it in an intellectual manner beyond that of an amemba?
And Looking at Google Earth right now as we speak.... there seems to be someone stealing cars outside your house (CYA)
It's funny how most people who do argue with a "religious" view, obviously do not see how skewed their views really are to begin with. There religion has taught them chasing their own tail is the only way to keep mysteries alive and myths from become gone.
Opinions, everyone has one and those who choose to take only portions of what is said "smaller structured sentences", and use them to suit their own opinions, obscure truth in everything they themselves say, whenever voicing their opinions.
To not re-evaluate our own individual understanding of a larger picture(one as large as society) is usually outside the range of the average person. It is their own refusal to continuing to educate themselves that is the foolishness you find in the forums.
Just a thought.
Opinions are just that: opinions. But when an opinion is obviously indefensible, but is still defended, it becomes apparent that the proponent is defending an ego or has an ulterior motive.
For example, why aren't federal laws enforced even though they are clearly written for all to see? In this instance there is a hidden agenda to not enforce the law. Another prime example are opinions concerning God. Some believe in God and some don't. Agree to disagree and move on.
However, I've found that atheists continue to argue the point long after the discussion has finished. They even resort to verbal abuse, violence, if not mayhem to make their case. It's quite obvious that these people are unhinged.
I would say athiests are unhappy and unsure....
Atheist and true believers are the same. They accept no argument against their belief. However, I don't see atheist out there killing people that don't agree with their belief.
I wonder how many people have changed their views as a result of the sometimes acrimonious exchanges on here? They seem to be angry cries for self-validation, for the most part.
I'm not so sure we choose to believe anything, really. Freedom of the will is an illusion. I can't help but think that. ;-)
We do choose to believe. Faith, on the other hand, I'm not so sure is a choice.
Do you believe the sky is up or down? Is it blue or brown?
Do you believe the world is flat or round? Is it still or does it spin?
Do you believe in love or life after death?
Do you believe you can see the truth through another's eyes?
Or, are they alibi's?
Wow, someone else is awake too. Choice is deciding which thought to accept as perceived. Faith/Free Will supersedes choice. If one still needs to choose to believe, one is not of faith, and certainly not free -of the human condition I refer as consciousness.
Free Will is a subtle but fascinating study. It's one of the most persistent problems in philosophy. The Wikipedia article on it is both succinct and clear, I thought. Check it out.
The question is - has anyone ever changed their opinion after reading opposing opinions on an online forum?
I don't believe an opinion would change dramatically or overnight after reading an online forum. Original opinions aren't developed overnight, they're developed over a lifetime.
Opinions are not built over a lifetime. Opinions are solely based on your collective knowledge and experience, at the time you spout the opinion.
Subjective? Objective? Will depend on your ability to weigh the knowledge and experience you personally have against all knowable.
I said developed, not built, because development is an ongoing process that doesn't have to end unless you want it to.
developed = built? Can you not see how these are the same.
built implies finished.
Development over a lifetime = developed prior to death.
The point was, I don't believe an opinion would change dramatically after reading an online forum. Thought processes have to have time to work and new experiences have to be tested against the new information before a new opinion can be developed - if its chosen to be altered.
So much for trying to clear up something. Remember, what I told you the other day? If not, then you can think about it and I'll leave it at that.
Nothing wrong with contributing. I call it the drip, drip, drip. Every drip helps.
----Opinions are solely based on your collective knowledge and experience, at the time you spout the opinion.----
So, in other words, the opinion can change or be 'redeveloped' into something new. The question is: how long does it take for the change or 'redevelopment' to occur?
Most people think the purpose of debate is to learn. It may add strength to your opinion or force you to change it. If you're capable of accepting facts you don't always like. It's ussless to argue with a person that has stopped learning.
Yes, I have. Admittedly it's only happened to me about three times in ten years, but it has happened.
Yep, I do change my opinion often after reading certain arguments in the forum...
I like the OP 'cos I would have argued that eggs always break when you drop them - before I read the egg dropped-on-pillow statement. The explanation is valid enough for me to be informed that eggs USUALLY break when they're dropped...
Without reading on the OP perspective, I wouldn't have thought of any other scenario or possibility with eggs other than to break when dropped...but it's now NECESSARY for me to realize that, in certain situations, I might have to abandon my belief that eggs break when dropped... fortunately, my psyche, identity and self isn't heavily influenced by eggs, or else I could be in big trouble here. lol
As well, even though I like to examine narratives in scripture, Mark Knowles has given an interesting perspective on Christian deities with,
"As opposed to the perfectly rational god who becomes his own son and murders himself to save humanity from the sin they are born into because the rib woman was convinced by the talking snake to eat a piece of fruit?"
I'd have to say, although Christians won't like this, Mark Knowles isn't WRONG here...but is coming from a different perspective... I'm just surprised that Mark Knowles did not put the egg and pillow in here somewhere!
Hey, you know, "In matters controversial / my perception's always fine / I always see both points of view / the one that's wrong and mine" Sorry, that probably doesn't add much to the discussion ...
Had nothing to do with that Rafini. But, you keep thinking. It might come to you.
nah, probably not unless it was quite important for me to remember.
Any hints or clues or links or a single word or a finger pointing in the right direction....lol
Apparently, by your own words, it was not important to remember. So, I'll just tell you....learning is a choice.
I was right, I don't think I would have ever remembered that - probably cuz I don't agree. I actually wrote a hub about learning (maybe after the discussion you're referring to?)
The first few years of life are full of abundant learning opportunities where choice isn't an option - everyone learns at an extreme rate and after that education begins.
What we are taught is not a choice, however, we ourselves (subconsciously) are in control of whether or not we learn what is being taught to us. We may learn from the schoolbooks, the schoolyard or both- but it isn't a conscious choice.
While being educated the shift of learning as a natural occurence to learning from our experiences leads us to different learning opportunities. Whether or not we like it, we can choose to learn a new skill or be forced to learn a new skill. We can choose to learn from new experiences or refuse to participate in new experiences thereby limiting learning opportunities. We can choose to continue our education & life learning processes or we can choose to remain where we are.
What we can not ever choose, as learners, is what learning opportunities are available due to surprise.
I like this:
"What we can not ever choose, as learners, is what learning opportunities are available due to surprise."
I've never considered that. Ty!
It's so seldom, in fact it's a rarity, that I find "originality" in an expressed thought. :-)
You know, it can be really annoying when people refuse to learn and the bigger misconception is that you don't have a choice.
You might want to learn(everything) what you can now, because apparently you haven't learned much yet. The first few years is about what your family conveys as morals and family values. Those are NOT a choice, they are a requirement for living life. This is where there is not a choice. YOU must learn it. And, the only people who can teach you is your parent(s).
There was a reason I told you to accept what I said to you and grasp it, so you and I, wouldn't have the same conversation over again. But, as you said- you disagree? WHY? The above answer, if that is what you call it, isn't even accurate. "What we are taught is not a choice", then you stick a "however"? There is no however. You either choose to absorb what you learn(because you're interested or need it for some reason you want) or you work harder to do so(because of slower learning curve). The other choice is ignorance. Btw- everything you DO in life is a conscious choice, even if you do not see other choices available to you. Then again, the choices you do not see is because you have stopped yourself from actively(choosing) to learn more.
Only those who choose to see or accept. Hence, beginning stage of forming a belief.
WOW! Nothing like contradicting your beginning of this post. It looks like you just talked yourself out of the conversation. So many choices you have and do not have, just because of the method in which you think.
I am not sure what Qwark found so enlightening about this statement, considering he missed the context of the entire post, but I would like to let you know....had you actually understood that learning is a choice? Then you would know that your mind has seen more, been a witness to, more knowledge than your perspective has ever saw.
To those who learn from everything they come in contact with...are rarely if ever surprised. The "learning opportunities", as you call it- is still learning, regardless of whether or not you see it.
I didn't wish to respond to Rafini's comment intoto.
There is no human being who exists now or who has ever existed that is so advanced in knowledge and reality that he cannot be surprised!
If a man is surprised, he "IS" experiencing an opportunity to grow by learning and understanding why he was surprised.
Raf offered an original thought which I thought deserved a ty!
Hi 5 RAf! :-)
Okay, calm down.
From the moment a baby is born they are learning without being taught. A baby learns by:
1. Seeing for the first time
2. Hearing for the first time
A. Their own cries
B. The sounds around them
3. Smelling for the first time
4. Feeling fabric against their skin, the touch of another human being, cold air
Are these learning opportunities a choice? No, its a natural occurance.
Naturally occurring learning opportunities continue throughout our lives. For instance: I do not know what an erupting volcano sounds like nor the smell of the hot lava as it's being spewed into the air. If I were ever in the vicinity of an erupting volcano I would learn what I don't currently know - was it a choice? No, it would be a naturally occurring learning opportunity because volcano eruptions cannot be predicted. (that may be an incorrect statement lol) I could use the circumstance of an earthquake instead...
As for parents being the only teachers of morals and values - Wrong. More and more babies are going into daycare at the age of 6 weeks. Who do you suppose is 'teaching' these babies while they're parents are working? If you could even say these babies are being taught. For the most part babies learn through natural learning opportunities, not through legitimate teaching methods - therefore they cannot be learning by choice. (sounds like we agree on that but for different reasons)
Do you disagree to an elementary school student being taught subjects not of their own choosing? They do not learn by choice, its required learning if they learn it. If they choose to learn the subjects required (because some do - everybody's different) there is also the natural learning opportunities of the playground which are not a choice of learning. Whether learning at this stage is from textbooks, playground or both - it isn't a conscious choice.
Cagsil - to be totally honest, I don't do something just because someone tells me to. Give me a good reason, give me time to think it over and if I think the reasons have sound logic I'll do my best to accept. Saying learning is a choice when it so obviously isn't lacks the logic required for me to accept what you said.
I do not believe everything I do is a conscious choice otherwise habits would not be able to be formed. Habits are habits, not conscious choices.
I think you're right about ----the choices you do not see is because you have stopped yourself from actively(choosing) to learn more.----- It makes sense to me, except...sometimes...I think sometimes all options are on the table. Or maybe, all known options are on the table. So, does that mean there are still more choices?
Learning opportunities due to surprise - lol, I can't imagine Qwark and I are the only ones to understand this. I wont repeat the erupting volcano example, or the earthquake. But I can also mention the hurricane or tornado. I haven't ever experienced these firsthand therefore if and when I do it will be a new learning experience - the difference on choice or surprise would be if I have the opportunity of choosing safety. (hurricanes are VERY predictable, tornadoes, not completely) I'll use a different example.
A few years ago two of my children were in a serous car accident (a new learning opportunity by surprise) I learned how I would react in such a situation. I learned how to take charge of the moment (I was at work when the hospital called) I learned my youngest could be counted on to prepare TV dinners so when I got home all we had to do was eat and leave for the hospital. I learned how to take care of 2 teenagers with concussions when they were released from the hospital. Now, were these learning opportunities by choice? No. These learning opportunities were forced upon me by the guy who ran a red light going 55 mph.
----Then you would know that your mind has seen more, been a witness to, more knowledge than your perspective has ever saw.----
I believe this leads to intuition? We are talking about whether or not learning is a choice - not whether or not the mind absorbs what is seen, witnessed, heard, learned.
We all have the right to an opinion however in my opinion, my opinion is better than your opinion because logically my opinion counts and your opinion is just an opinion. doh! lol
The rub seems to come when people state their opinions as though they are facts and the fact is that a fact is quite different from an opinion. That fact is "it's a green couch", it is a beautiful green couch or an ugly green couch is an opinion.
Our opinion are base on the way we learn from our own surounding. and we would have to see something different then probably we would change our opinion.
It can be frustrating trying to convince someone that your knowledge is better then their knowledge.
Why bother, why not just have a civilized discussion without caring that you have superimposed your beliefs on another?
They are afraid that if they do not stifle us we may see the truth and stone them with their half truths and skeward logic.
Become the free and peaceful people that all have claimed to want to become. But, before we can do this we have to open our minds to seeing that wheather(?) or not we agree each has a right to believe as they will.
the bottom line is i am always right and you guys are only so when in agreement with me
I think Al Franken said it best:
"We are entitled to our own opinions; we're not entitled to our own facts."
by Mikeydoes6 years ago
"The best thing to do is not form your own opinion and just agree with everyone else's."I've found in my life that opinions cause problems. They usually end up having people agree with you(which is great), but...
by Alan3 years ago
When anyone, of whatever religious persuasion, holds thoroughly rigid views within the accepted norms of that religion, does it make for honesty and truth? Or deception and lies?Opening up one's mind to other points of...
by Aya Katz3 years ago
I've often been accused of being arrogant, and it's usually by people who disagree with me about something. I've noticed that some of my favorite historical personages have also been accused of arrogance. What exactly...
by crankalicious3 years ago
So I occasionally engage in political debate on the Hubpages forums, but as I do, I wonder if such things aren't partly to blame for the state of our political culture.The forums are fun, if you don't take things too...
by rotl6 years ago
Why can't some people respect others' political views, choices, lifestyles, religion, etc?Is it intelligence or lack thereof, socialization, upbringing, personality, environment, education or lack thereof, religious...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
Let's open this with examples.Fact -The Moon's diameter is 3,474 kilometres.Lie - (This won the 2009 Lie of the Year Award - Politifact)"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.