Why do you think you have a right to attack others opinions?

Because why we believe is just as important as what we believe.

That is just, literally, TASTE. It is an opinion. Most question about believe are not wrong or right!

@SavoirFaire Including the right to justify others opinions? I can see a little bit of dictatorism here.

@Tropical_Willie Yes,you’re definitely right. I’m talking more about attacking other people’s opinions.

Sweetness can actually be measured, scientifically. It’s not like asking if you like the Stones or KISS more – there is actually a right and a wrong answer to that one.

In the example that you provided, neither one of the answers are right or wrong because it is a matter of taste. If the question asked required facts or proof of a right or wrong answer, then one can prove the other wrong with a strong and well thought out argument.

@Your_Majesty You’ll have to explain how you are using the word “justify” here. Usually it means “to prove correct.” You seem to mean “contradict” or something along those lines. Regardless, what seems dictatorial to me is saying that I don’t have a right to my own opinion—even though that opinion might be counter to your own.

You seem to be using the word “justify” when you mean “contradict”. “Justify” means to give reasons for something, not to disagree with something.

Some people though address questions as if only one opinion or answer is correct, even in cases where multiple opinions could all be valid or even correct without contradicting each other.

@SavoirFaire and @Zaku I apologize. That’s what exactly what I meant. My goodness! What was I thinking??

I really do feel that way sometimes—I say something which I perceive to be true from my experience and perspective, then someone tells me, “No, you’re wrong.” I consider it arrogant and rude—if it happens several times with the same person, I usually lose any interest in interacting with that person from that point on because, in my perspective, there’s no way to win with that person except to be the one that concedes.
If they had said “My experience is different,” I’m completely all for that—everyone has different experiences, perspectives and interpretations and I do enjoy hearing that people have different experiences and love learning from others’ perspectives. Sometimes simply hearing their experiences leads me to see mine in a different way, but that’s the thing- I enjoy sharing experiences.
If I get into a discussion with someone who has never experienced something that I live with everyday, and tells me I’m wrong… oh boy.
So to answer your question- why do people do that. No CLUE. Maybe it’s their personality, how they were raised—maybe they see things in black and white and don’t see that there can be several right answers to the same question… who knows.

@linguaphile That might be the proper response when what is up for discussion is something subjective. There is no “right answer” in such cases, only different experiences. But if the topic for discussion is not something subjective, why say that no one can contradict anyone else? Debate can be quite productive under the right conditions.

@linguaphile GA! You’re so right. Some people just like to say “You’re wrong” which is ruder for me when they can be more thoughtful.

Who doesn’t like being right? Who likes being wrong? I think that’s the simple answer.

You are entitled to your own opinion. I am entitled to my opinion But no one is entitled to expect that they should be able to express an opinion and not ever have that opinion questioned, countered, argued against or possibly proven wrong.

Edit: Also, as the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

@SavoirFaire I didn’t say they couldn’t disagree or have a debate, but to understand that the other person’s perspective also exists and to respect the person having that perspective, then offer a different perspective, not discredit theirs. One of the few exceptions I would consider was if one person is arguing an observation vs. someone’s experience, I think that’s where it would be really rude to discredit the experience. I think this applies even to ‘black and white’ appearing questions.
I like @Your_Majesty‘s phrase “they can be more thoughtful.”

@linguaphile But not everything is about different experiences. If you say the moon is a star and I say it is not, you are wrong and I am right. A debate in this case necessarily involves attempting to discredit your statement. This can be done respectfully.

Why do you think you have a right to justify others opinions? There have been a few times where, whether I believe in a person’s response or not, I am willing to stand up for them when they do not.

Unless I misunderstand the definition of “justify”, Ms. B did not justify Mr. A’s response; she opposed it. There seems to be times when people should keep their opinions about another person’s response to themselves, and then there are others where debating an answer by providing facts is helpful.

While I am willing to listen to the opposing opinions of others, no matter how blunt, I would prefer if it were a bit sugar-coated. Sorry…I couldn’t resist the pun. Instead of saying, “No, Mr. A is wrong”, others word it more softly. “I found this article that says that brown sugar is…”

I don’t think that in all cases it is about domination, or winning for that matter, although I’ve witnessed this in action. Sometimes people just respond before they think about how the initial message may come across to those on the receiving end. On an internet site, such as this one, there are those that feel that an anonymous avatar provides a certain freedom to say their true thoughts, and then there are those that take advantage of ability to edit before responding.

Everyone has a right to express their opinion. And personally, when it comes to matters of taste, I would not argue with someone else. My taste and theirs might vary widely. I am in no position to say which form of sugar tastes sweeter to someone other than me. I’d just offer my own opinion and let it go at that.

But some opinions matter a great deal. Adolph Hitler’s opinions about Jews being the cause of all the world’s problems and Aryan Germans being the rightful master race that should eventually purge the Earth of all inferior people ended up getting 60,000,000 people killed. Perhaps if more people had spoken up early and opposed his opinions with strength and eloquence, the world could have been spared much of that suffering.

When I think someone is expressing an opinion that is wrong, and that will do great harm to me, my area, my country or the world; I will express my dissenting opinion with all the strength I can muster. And when the issue is one of fact and evidence-based conclusions; I will attack opinions that I know are not supported by the facts. To do any less than that, to me, is moral relativism.

It depends a lot on the context of the situation. But in general, if someone chooses to put their opinion out for public consumption, then to me, that invites public response. In other words, by putting the opinion out there, you’ve given others the right to agree/disagree/dissect, etc.

According to the dictionary, an opinion is:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

which means that unless I have solid evidence to support my opinion, it is open to scrutiny because it is not inherently completely certain. But I still have the right to maintain it because it’s a free country and it’s what I choose to believe.

I think any belief/opinion/position is open to being challenged, but there’s no reason in the world to do so in a less-than-respectful manner.

@augustlan – I agree, well said and ga

No fair, you changed the question. I don’t attack people’s opinions, and my answer was to the original question, not the changed one.

Questioning the arguments of others is what makes philosophy interesting and worth while. I don’t think I would be interested in continuing a conversation with someone who agrees with everything I have to say. We all need to be challenged in order to learn and grow intellectually.

If person A and person B were to discuss something “factual”—i.e. Person A argues that Pluto is a not planet (with sustaining facts and evidence); Person B argues that Pluto IS a planet (also with sustaining facts and evidence) it will be obvious that Person A is “correct” according to today’s scientific community’s stance.
However, that does not disallow Person B from attempting to argue his/her points because that’s the spirit of debate: offering different possible perspectives or arguments (even facts can be interpreted differently). And in many ways, a good debate is also leads to the spirit of discovery through idea sharing.
Being “right” does not, in any way, entitle Person A to be rude and disrespectful, nor does it entitle them to attack. Attacking is not debating—the spirit of debate, in my opinion, requires both sides to listen and process, even if they disagree—and a good disagreement includes sustained opinions, examples and facts, respect and humor, and hopefully ends with an agreement to disagree, not violence.
One of my favorite quote by Whitman is:
Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
Whitman says “disputed passage with you…” which, in my opinion, shows that a healthy debating relationship is present.

Western civilization is based on reasoning either being correct or not correct, true or not true. It is an adversarial reasoning conditionally true is not acceptable. It’s perpetuated by multiple choice questions in school.

Well, if someone expresses an immature and dumb opinion, even if it is his opinion, I’d “attack” it, with rationality of course.

@BarnacleBill I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say “conditionally true is not acceptable.” Conditionals, or implications, form a major part of the systems of both formal logic and informal reasoning.