Subjective opinions.

[Rhodesy]

An opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or assurance. (Sounds a lot like religion, but that’s a different matter). Some people can not differentiate from a subjective opinion in an argument and an objective one. This is what differs from an opinionated argument and a factual one.
Here is a little antidote I encountered. I was having a discussion with my friend; he told me that opinions can not be wrong. So if he told me that the earth is flat, and that’s his opinion. Now, obviously it’s a scientific fact that the earth is spherical, or if to be precise it’s an oblate spheroid.

I began to tell him that that was a subjective opinion. If you argue with a subjective opinion without elaborating why you believe with facts to back up, then your point is completely wrong, yes your subjective opinions can not be wrong, as I could say I like green, but if used in an argument you are just stating something. I could say that the earth is spherical, then began to say that it’s because Columbus travelled around the world, and he didn’t fall of the edge of the horizon and ended in the same point in which he started, that’s an objective point.

Another thing, could someone say “My opinion is that you’re not entitled to your own opinion”. This could seem quite paradoxical, but it’s the correct statement in the theory of opinion.

Basically I’m trying to say that yes, you should cherish, and share your opinions, but please do not state subjective opinions as the truth in arguments, this is something which really annoys me as many people say this in today’s society with religion for example.

But what are your views on this topic. Discuss.

 

See my thread on prejudice.

Suffices to say the simple counter-argument to the subjectivist fallacy is as follows:

A: reality is an illusion and I am entitled to my opinion.
B: I disagree. Am I a figment of your imagination then?
A: yes
B: then you are insane, because in order to debate with yourself you would have to hold two conflicting beliefs and believe both of them equally.
B: and there is no purpose in debating with someone who is insane by their own admission.
B exits.

Round 2:
C: There are no absolutes, all things are subjective.
D: You just stated an absolute. You just stated that it is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. This is a contradiction.
D exits.

Round 3:
... at end of conversation ...
E: well that's your individual truth, and this is mine
F: well in debating me in the first place you accept that there is an absolute truth of the matter, and that this truth can be resolved via debate. If this weren't the case not only would there be no point in debating, but there would be no possibility of disagreement, as I would see only whatever I wanted to see, and you would see only what you want to see, and our terms would have whatever meanings we wanted them to have.
F exits

Notice that you exit debates with subjectivists, because not only are the debates pointless, but the subjectivists themselves tend to be violent, stupid people.

 

[downy]

Subjective means based on feelings or emotions rather than on facts. An example: "Cats are covered with fur" is objective; it's a fact; it can be proven. "I like cats" is subjective; it's your own opinion based on your feelings rather than on any facts.

 

[Rhodesy]

See my thread on prejudice.

Suffices to say the simple counter-argument to the subjectivist fallacy is as follows:

A: reality is an illusion and I am entitled to my opinion.
B: I disagree. Am I a figment of your imagination then?
A: yes
B: then you are insane, because in order to debate with yourself you would have to hold two conflicting beliefs and believe both of them equally.
B: and there is no purpose in debating with someone who is insane by their own admission.
B exits.

Round 2:
C: There are no absolutes, all things are subjective.
D: You just stated an absolute. You just stated that it is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. This is a contradiction.
D exits.

Round 3:
... at end of conversation ...
E: well that's your individual truth, and this is mine
F: well in debating me in the first place you accept that there is an absolute truth of the matter, and that this truth can be resolved via debate. If this weren't the case not only would there be no point in debating, but there would be no possibility of disagreement, as I would see only whatever I wanted to see, and you would see only what you want to see, and our terms would have whatever meanings we wanted them to have.
F exits

Notice that you exit debates with subjectivists, because not only are the debates pointless, but the subjectivists themselves tend to be violent, stupid people.

Do you believe that opinions with no rationalization in an argument or discussion should be treated with the equivalent courtesy response as one that has? I’m not too sure if you are agreeing with the points I made or not, however you did make some valid points in which you said. Would you agree that religion is a subjective opinion?

Subjective means based on feelings or emotions rather than on facts. An example: "Cats are covered with fur" is objective; it's a fact; it can be proven. "I like cats" is subjective; it's your own opinion based on your feelings rather than on any facts.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090117122458AARgBlm

You have just copy and pasted a response from yahoo answers. Post your own opinion, I have established what a subjective opinion is, we are debating the use of them in arguments not another definition.

 

Do you believe that opinions with no rationalization in an argument or discussion should be treated with the equivalent courtesy response as one that has?

No.

I wish to make clear that the opinions of which you speak are called "prejudice":
Let us be quite explicit about our terms. Prejudice is necessarily a subset of opinion, but it is important to distinguish it from opinion, because not all opinion is prejudice. For example: if I like the flavour strawberry, or the colour red, this is my opinion -- my subjective valuation -- rather than a prejudice.

Read my thread on it here: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=834089
(See particularly my replies to the first few posts.)

I’m not too sure if you are agreeing with the points I made or not, however you did make some valid points in which you said. Would you agree that religion is a subjective opinion?

See above.

 

[Rhodesy]

No.

I wish to make clear that the opinions of which you speak are called "prejudice":
Let us be quite explicit about our terms. Prejudice is necessarily a subset of opinion, but it is important to distinguish it from opinion, because not all opinion is prejudice. For example: if I like the flavour strawberry, or the colour red, this is my opinion -- my subjective valuation -- rather than a prejudice.

Read my thread on it here: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=834089
(See particularly my replies to the first few posts.)

See above.

Oh, I think I understand you now. So some subjective statements can be classed as prejudice. Clarify something, if acting on that is it discrimination or a consequence?

 

Oh, I think I understand you now. So some subjective statements can be classed as prejudice. Clarify something, if acting on that is it discrimination or a consequence?

This won't clarify the question, because the question itself is not well formed.

Action in itself is discrimination. In order to act you must first discriminate between the various actions you might take.

To act on prejudice is to step blindly into traffic. That is: because prejudice is little more than an unreasoned guess or randomly chosen position, if you attempt to apply it to reality, reality will bite you in the face.

So for example, a prejudice might be: "I don't need any savings, just because."
If you apply this prejudice, you will get kicked out of your house if you lose your job, and end up spending the night on the streets, or worse.
All of the nasty consequences of maintaining a prejudice are delivered cleanly via metaphysical justice.

Another example might be:
"Drugs can't hurt me, because I'm awesome."
Because it is prejudice, reality will take no notice -- or rather you have not taken notice of reality. And when you act on your prejudice, you will probably die.

More here:
http://solohq.solopassion.com/Objectivism101/Ethics_MetaphysicalJustice.shtml

 

[Rhodesy]

This won't clarify the question, because the question itself is not well formed.

Action in itself is discrimination. In order to act you must first discriminate between the various actions you might take.

To act on prejudice is to step blindly into traffic. That is: because prejudice is little more than an unreasoned guess or randomly chosen position, if you attempt to apply it to reality, reality will bite you in the face.

So for example, a prejudice might be: "I don't need any savings, just because."
If you apply this prejudice, you will get kicked out of your house if you lose your job, and end up spending the night on the streets, or worse.
All of the nasty consequences of maintaining a prejudice are delivered cleanly via metaphysical justice.

Another example might be:
"Drugs can't hurt me, because I'm awesome."
Because it is prejudice, reality will take no notice -- or rather you have not taken notice of reality. And when you act on your prejudice, you will probably die.

More here:
http://solohq.solopassion.com/Objectivism101/Ethics_MetaphysicalJustice.shtml

That’s essentially really fascinating, I was oblivious prejudice had another meaning behind the obvious one. Thanks.