Do you believe that all men/women should have the equal right to thought and opinion?
Recently engaged in a debate with someone who believes "The ideology of egalitarian -ness of thought and opinion is inherently dangerous, the murderer and the rapist should not have the right to think that their opinions are equally OK. These two are not beyond judgement. " What is your take on this?
What is the topic of their thought or opinion? If their opinion is that they should be able to perform the acts for which they are labeled for some reason that is justifiable in their mind, good luck to them but no. Society lives or dies by certain rules and the rules our society has settled on does not justify murder or rape.
If, however, the topic of their thoughts and opinions are related more to thinking that Green Bay will defeat the Steelers in a few days, good luck but no. Not "no, your opinion is invalid because of what you've done," but "no, no way will a bunch of cheeseheads beat the men of steel."
They can have as many faulty opinions as they want, but none of them that attempts to rationalize their criminal actions carry any weight.
Yes I do, I beleive in equality for everyone. No matter the sex, race, religious or political beliefs. People are people and everyone is equal. If everyone would believe this way, we would have almost NO wars. Greg
Oh, for sure. Everyone has the right to their own thoughts and opinion, that is what freedom in the free world is about. Whether the content of the thought / opinion is of worth to the person listening to it, well, that is up to the recipient to decide. The thing is while we hold this freedom in our hands, it is crucial that we value it by listening to everyone's opinions in a calm, rational manner. If, after all discussions have been ensued, and no one decision has been made, we need to show appreciation for everyone's opinion and give respect to all by agreeing to disagree
robschwenck - This whole conversation started over a comment that I made regarding his opinion of the movie "When Harry Met Sally" in which I had said that we would have to agree to disagree. The quote that I included in the original question was his response to my comment:
"I have always believed that perspectives, much like feelings and opinions, are the personal intellectual property of the individual, which makes them above the censorship of judgement. They are therefore, neither good or bad, neither right, nor wrong, they just are what they are. Without these neutral muses there would be no free thought, and without free thought, there would be no room for difference in our lives. Think of it this way....Two people from two different parts of the world, two different soci-economic backgrounds, two different genders, and therefor having two very diffent sets of life experience, stand together in front of the same painting; Do they see the same thing? Most likely not, because what they see is subject to their own interpretation, and that interpretation is subject to their own perspective, which means that no matter how similar something might be to something else, there will always be difference in how it is seen or interpretated by the individual. Which means, in my opinion, that even in their "sameness" they inspire and create difference....Again, just my perspective"
Hope this helps to clarify things.
I guess my thought process is "how do you deprive a person of holding that thought process?" In other words, if a rapist feels that he is justified is carrying out his crimes against women, then that is simply his opinion and that opinion is seriously undermined credibility-wise by his crimes. Thus, he can hold the opinion but it has no real value with anyone in society and doubfully would have any impact there. The same holds true for us...we can have our opinions and express them but if they fall too far outside the bounds of reasonable and sensible thinking, we soon lose credibility with our listeners and they hold us accountability by simply not listening to us anymore. WB
Someone wiser than I once said "the right to be heard Does NOT automatically include the right to be taken seriously." I may hear you, but if what you say is illogical or a violation of society I may not listen.
Well, they both have the right to think their opinions are "okay," that doesn't mean they have equal rights with respect to acting on their opinions - i.e. because I believe I have the right to break the law does not give me the right to do. That is why society has rules. We protect ourselves from persons that use their intellect and compulsions to do harm.
Another example of this reasoning is the recent US Supreme Court ruling that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to picket at the funerals of slain military men and women. They carry signs and chant hateful things such as God Hates Fags and You're Going to Hell. Their protests are meant to bring attention to their position that God is punishing the country for its tolerance of homosexuals by killing our soldiers. It's a stretch, I know, but that is their reasoning and their protests have been upheld as lawful on the basis of their right to free speech. While most reasonable people would argue that what they are doing could be construed as a hate crime and punishable by law, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the protesters, saying that since no laws were broken, they can continue to picket because they are merely exercising their right to free speech. I HATE this ruling, but have to agree with it. If we begin to censor various forms of self-expression (even those with which we vehemently disagree) we being our descent down a slippery slope toward full censorship.
No matter how pure the motives behind your speech/ thoughts, there will always be someone out there that disagrees with you. We can't censor everything. At some point we just have to accept that there will be differences of opinion. I think that assuming that those who do not share your view point should have less right to their own point of view is more dangerous than assigning equal rights to everyone. In an example such as yours, the rapist is a criminal and his/ her actions will have consequences. Their thoughts and speech will become irrelevant because they have broken the law and they will be punished accordingly. Therein lies the justice.
Yes, but their should be restrictions on who can or cannot express those thoughts/opinions based on other's rights.
by securityproducts319 months ago
Is there a difference between an opinion and an informed stance on a subject?
by Patricia Scott5 months ago
Is it important to you to listen to the opinion of others, even when you disagree?Often we have discussions with others on 'hot topics', on which there may be much disagreement. Is it possible for you to respectfully...
by David Stillwell5 years ago
Should women have the right to vote?Am working on my first political hub and gathering information. I would like to hear both sides of the opinionated coin about whether or not women should have the right to vote or if...
by Rhonda D Johnson20 months ago
Are all opinions equal?Most of us insist on our right to our own opinion and that is as it should be. Does that mean everyone's opinion is of equal value? Honest debate will often prove that certain...
by Jeff Berndt7 years ago
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...
by rotl7 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...
Copyright © 2018 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.