You are not entitled to your opinion

[ciphergoth]

• You Are Never Entitled to Your Opinion
  
• Sorry, but you are not entitled to your opinion
  
• Why You Are Not Entitled To Your Opinion

You are, I think, entitled to the right to hold and express any opinion without being shut down by the State for doing so; that is where the entitlement ends.

[Poll #1410915]
(edit: removed Harlan Ellison quote, which doesn't really express what I'm getting at here)

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

But I wouldn't discourage people from saying it. - would like to hear more about this, if you would?

[hughe.livejournal.com]

I think everyone has a right to hold an express an opinion and, if that is what "I am entitled to my opinion" means, I wouldn't discourage them from saything that.

I also think that everyone should be able to back their opinions up with reasoning (preferably non-flawed reasoning) but even if they don't they are still entitled to their opinion, they just don't know why they hold that opinion.

I'd like to encourage people to explain their reasoning, but I also think that they don't have to.

It is everyone else that should be educated to not consider anyone elses opinion unless it can be backed up with reasoning.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

As the second article linked above asks, if there is a right to hold and express an opinion, what duty does that right impose on others?

[hughe.livejournal.com]

by that definition... I think it is the duty of others to allow them to hold and express their opinion, however wrong you may think it may be.

i dont think it is the duty of other people to beleive it, or to not express their own conflicting opinion. I certainly don't think it is other people's duty or responsibility to change the opinions. It may be in their interest to, however.

But I suppose what they are getting at is: If I have an entitlement to the opinion, do I also have pretection over people trying to change it. If you have reasoning behind it then you can compare reasoning and it isn't an issue. Opinions can and should be fluid based on evidence, like scientific theory.

*shrug*

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

But what does "allow them to express it" mean? It's not as though any of us have the power to stop people expressing their opinions.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'm still having trouble working out what you mean by "I am entitled to my opinion". By "allow", do you mean "not punch them"? If not just that, then what?

[hughe.livejournal.com]

and what do "others" mean? fellow citezens? the government? MI5?

It's more complicated than it sounds. Sounds like there is some balance between them not harrassing others and others not physically asaulting them :)

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

and what do "others" mean? fellow citezens? the government? MI5?

Another excellent question you need to answer in order to give the phrase meaning, yes. What duties does it impose, and on whom? Beware of simply chasing the meaninglessness from one phrase to another!

[hughe.livejournal.com]

but I think overall I think people have the right to be wrong. I don't think it puts any duty on anybody else. If they use their wrong and get burned (eg "in my opinion fire is cold") then it was their responsibility to research their opinions before putting them into practice. I don't think it is the goverment's responsibility to tell them fire is hot. Other people may want to, but I dont think it is a duty.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

But the point of the second article is that it's meaningless to posit a "right" that imposes no duty on anyone.

[despina.livejournal.com]

Just discouraging someone from saying it will either make them defensive, feel like you're saying they aren't entitled to their opinions (which yes, but they won't take it how you mean it unless you get very lucky), and so express their opinions even louder or, well. I dunno but it's unlikely to encourage more critical thinking.

I am lucky because in my professional and home life I am able to forbid that sort of lazy non-argument (well, in my presence at least, and dear me I am sounding a bit dictatorial. I suppose big fat hippies do end up enforcing their views; "you WILL be tolerant and thoughtful". Well this one does). Ultimately it's a meaningless statement. It's like saying "I am willfully ignorant", and willful ignorance is something I cannot stand.

However out in the world I feel there has to be an encouragement to critical thinking rather than a discouragement from entitlement, it needs to be a productive discussion and few people are up for that. In practise I either risk offending people by being 'patronising' or whatever or just leave it unless their opinion is based on an error of fact.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Right, so you're saying that the less people say it the happier you are, but you wouldn't actively try to discourage them because it stands a good chance of just making things worse. That makes sense - it's really the former I'm asking about rather than the latter.

[despina.livejournal.com]

I'd do some discouraging - well, some discussing about why it's not a meaningful statement etc - in the right circumstances. The phrase makes me wince. I'd rather people didn't think it ;)