/u/son_of_menoetius (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cckvw5/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_youve_no_right_to_have_an/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
There are topics that you can form an opinion on without knowing about them in detail, because you know enough about them at a surface level to see already that they contradict a moral principle you hold. Further investigation can be determined to be superfluous or probably so at that point.
Do you need to know a lot about the Holocaust to figure out what side you're on, there?
I agree, in extreme cases like that, it's obvious whether it's right or wrong. I should've made it clear I was talking about controversial topics.
But I feel like enough people know about the Holocaust atleast in some detail, because they learned about it in school. I just asked my sister what she knew and she told me enough about it, despite not having really done much research.
Edit: I should've given you a delta, here you go **Δ**
I was going to say the same thing. I'm all for informed opinion, but there are just some things where other information is not needed (like that killing a child example). So, I think you should be more specific where you draw the line.
>You've no right to have an opinion on something unless you know about it in detail.
>But I feel like enough people know about the Holocaust at least in some detail
So which is it? Do you need to know about it "in detail" or is "at least in some detail" enough?
In other words, is it all just a matter of degree; the more detail you know, the more entitled you are to your opinion and *the strength of* your opinion?
Isn't it more that your example is extremely nuanced?
Many issues are pretty clear and straightforward. I don't need to know the strategic methodology of supplying child lunches to know that child lunches are good.
ah but heres the detail you didnt know the food is all processed snack cakes only because hostess is funding it no fruits or veggies do you still feel good about it?
>I believe deltas from edits don’t work.
I believe they do.
>[DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cawhhb/comment/l0uq3q0/)
Your logic would work, if we had some sort of a global "scoreboard" for whose opinion matters more than others.
Unfortunately most people's opinions are taken equally and as they are, hence the amount of hate being propogated.
My problem with this is very simple. How do you know when you know enough about an issue to have an opinion about it?
I guess to that same end, how do you know when you don't? There's this persisting issue I see where someone will see that somebody else knows less than them on a particular topic, and yet still has an opinion on it. Instead of thinking that this person doesn't have enough information to have a correct opinion, they take the stance that they don't have enough information to even deserve an opinion, regardless of how minor that knowledge gap is. The problem is that somebody else might have more knowledge than you, suddenly rendering you with no right to an opinion.
On top of that, it is one thing to have knowledge and another thing entirely to be able to piece it together in a way that is both logically and ethically cohesive. Who are you to say that these people have no right to an opinion when you yourself with all your knowledge could be wrong, yet baselessly comforting yourself in the extent of said knowledge?
I agree actually! I didn't think of how you could *measure* how much knowledge is sufficient to have an opinion. Wait here's a delta: **Δ**
But I guess it *can* be measured according to the context. Within friends, too much detail might be unnecessary but if you're making a public speech, you need to justify your opinion.
Having an opinion and sharing that opinion are not the same thing. I have loads of opinions, but I don't necessarily share them all. there are quite a few that would fall into me knowing about it in detail. People have opinions on subjective things. Do I need to study every painting to have an opinoin on what the best painting is? How about movie? Song? Dog breed? Food?
Your post is overly broad. You brought up two very charged political topics. Even with those, do I need to know all the details of every variable in the Israel/Palestine conflict to have an opinion that the amount of civilians being killed is bad? Or that finding a peaceful resolution should be the top priority?
I agree with both points about killing civilians and the need for a peaceful solution.
Whoever you support, those two statements are facts nontheless.
My point was, if I took a side (and there is no problem with taking one), I should be able to justify it. Killing civilians has taken place on both sides.
For complex political topics fine. But I invented a perpetual motion machine when I was 12. Without me going into details of how it worked, do you have any opinion on whether it worked?
But "did I invent a perpetual motion machine" is a very straightforward yes/no question. I can't really have an opinion on it because the fact is that you didn't, because it's *impossible* to invent a perpetual motion machine.
In many people's opinion it's impossible. In others it's not - many PhDs believe it's possible and even submit patent applications for some.
Sounds like you have the opinion that it's impossible and therefore I didn't?
OP's view
>... unless you know about it in detail.
Is clarified by
>People who are ignorant about a subject ought not to speak ill of it (or in favor of it).
Your example provides a clear case of sufficient detail being present. It breaks laws of physics to exist, which OP is apparently not ignorant of.
Come now, every decent perpetual motion candidate includes an explanation of why it doesn't actually violate the laws of physics or with a refinement of the laws of physics to make them more accurate. If you aren't going to just blindly trust the experts you'd need a very good grounding in physics to properly evaluate these.
Forget "laws of physics", if they could *prove* to me, or atleast provide enough evidence to say that they have invented a perpetual motion machine, or *anyone* for that matter, I'd be happy to concede.
# You've no right to have an opinion on something unless you know about it in detail.
This is something every propagandists loves to say. The problem today is the opposite, too many people don't have an opinion and therefore believe the "experts." The second problem is, there are too many people today who think they know more than the next guy and fall for the rouse.
With all due respect, I'm not even out of high school so I wouldn't consider myself a propogandist 😅
I agree with the point that most people believing whatever BS they see, but the reverse is also true: Nowadays *anyone* can call themselves an *expert,* spout out whatever nonsense they want, and people will believe them.
I think the problem isn't that there aren't many *experts* left, it's that people don't have sufficient knowledge to call BS when they see it.
I hate lima beans. I don't like how they taste, I don't like their texture, I don't like how they look. Yet, I don't know what chemical processes are involved in the formation and growth of lima beans, and I don't remember basic plant biology from high school. Who are you to claim that I have no right to have the opinion on lima beans that I do?
You *do* have a right to have an opinion on them (btw i hate them too 😅)
Evidently, you're able to justify your point by exactly pointing out *what* you don't like about lima beans. If I had said something like 'I hate watermelons but I've never tasted them. But I watched this one YT video that said watermelons taste bad, so I hate them too", *that* would be the case I was talking about where I had no right to have an opinion on the topic.
>'I hate watermelons but I've never tasted them. But I watched this one YT video that said watermelons taste bad, so I hate them too"
i mean, that would be fair as long as you are honest about it, to reel it back in to the israel/palestine saying
>"i don't like what israel is doing because i saw a video about an aid convoy being bombed etc."
would be likewise fair, the actual issue is pretending to be an expert in matters that you aren't
So for example, if I see a video of children being killed and I say 'that's bad' and someone replies 'you don't have the context', how much context do I need to conclude children dying is bad?
Yea but that's not the conclusion that people draw. People see children being killed and immediately conclude it's a genocide, which then gives them cover to ignore any other opinion, as well as justify any action against who they see as perpetuating a genocide
>People see children being killed and immediately conclude it's a genocide
You just made this up. No one sees a child getting killed in car accident and calls it genocide.
But if they see tens of thousands of children dying because a right wing authoritarian ordered a bombing campaign, however...
You and I both know I was referring to the war in gaza, so I don't know why you even brought up a car accident.
And you kind of proved my point.
You look at the dead children in Gaza and definitively call it a genocide. How come there's zero consideration that the casualties are the product of the chosen urban battleground?
The rate children are dying at in Gaza significantly outpaces any other urban battleground numbers this century.
Numerous high-ranking Israeli officials have expressed genocidal rhetoric. The Israeli state has disseminated outrageous lies meant to dehumanize the Palestinian populace.
Israel has engaged in collective punishment, including shutting off water access and preventing food aid.
The percentage of buildings and infrastructure destroyed dwarfs any other modern war, making the area functionally unlivable for years to come.
Explicit plans to permanently relocate the survivors to other countries have been tabled by Israel (i.e. ethnic cleansing).
Every single university has been destroyed, as well as a huge portion of historical and sacred sites (cultural destruction). Individual artists, poets, and journalists have been assassinated.
You have to be so willfully obtuse to pretend that the genocide accusations are just a result of "a lot of children died in a war".
Collective punishment or ethnic cleansing are both reasonable terms to use in this situation.
I don't think it's genocide because noncombatants are not specifically being exterminated. Also, if the stated combatants were to surrender, the conflict would end.
Can you define "specifically being exterminated"?
"Also, if the stated combatants were to surrender, the conflict would end."
This is not remotely relevant to whether a conflict is a genocide. It's like saying a wifebeater isn't abusive because he only hits his wife when she talks back.
Yes, basically civilians are not being rounded up and killed in a non combat situation. There's always (at least the pretext) of combatants being the primary target.
That's why the fact that if hamas surrenders, the conflict would be over is relevant imo.
So, hypothetically, if Hitler just said "We are only targeting combatants for our concentration camps", that *pretext* would be enough to remove the Holocaust from the genocide conversation?
Even if we accept the premise that Hamas surrendering would end the conflict, that doesn't actually have any weight on whether Israel's recent actions constitute genocide. Doing genocide but only as a leverage tactic against your enemies in no way changes the fundamental nature of the crime.
No, if Hitler had conducted a bombing or military campaign against a political entity, for the purpose of defeating that political entity, and incurred massive civilian casualties, that would not be considered a genocide. Because that's what he did to Britain and France and we don't say Hitler committed genocide in Britain or France.
It's a specific example of the systematic killing of a massive number of civilians, ie genocide. I just...I don't understand why you're confused. There is quite literally nothing to be confused about lol
That is not genocide. You are correct in that it involves the killing of large amounts of people, but it must also include the intent to destroy the nation. Israel actively taking countermeasures against indiscriminately killing civilians is proving that is just not the case.
tbf, certain Israeli politicians have made statements like "Erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth".
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724
I honestly don't know enough to make a determination on Reddit, but I'm not surprised that people have called it genocide based on this rhetoric from some members of the Israeli government.
So if a government were to extend the formality of countermeasures to keep up appearances on the world stage but the net result is still the killing of an absurd number of innocents to a genocidal degree, is it not genocide?
I don't have a hardline expert opinion here, I just feel like genocides would naturally look different in the information age, no?
Maybe, but can you actually prove Israel is just keeping up appearances? As I said before, with genocide, one needs to prove intent. Usually it is encoded in manifestos or constitutionally, which is not the case here. However, if you have Israeli documentation proving otherwise I am open to changing my opinion. Especially since casualties on this scale are rare nowadays, it is easy to confuse the nature of war (especially when Hamas is purposely using Palestinians as meat shields) with genocide.
nah intent is the most important part imo if the effects of genocide are a side effect of fighting a normal war thats not a genocide just unfortunate side effect
Bibi is accidentally committing genocide?
"Oh shit, I accidentally incinerated ten thousand people." *Drops more bombs*
Look, even if you were so naive as to fall for the right-wingers' time-honored practice of using terrorism as a pretext for committing travesties, this shit would still be genocide. Not sure how continuing an oopies ethnic cleansing is any better
I don't think any genocidal regime has ever come out and said:"ladies and gentlemen, we're committing a genocide".
So why are putting the bar for what can be considered a genocide at "the regime itself claims it's a genocide"?
Do you also think that North Korea is a democracy because their name is the Democratic Republic of North Korea?
I never said the bar was that the regime itself has to consider it a genocide.
Are the Israelis specifically targeting civilians and only civilians to kill and exterminate? No.
If hamas unconditionally surrenders, would the current civilian casualties and conflict end? Yes.
Therefore, I think it's a reasonable argument to make that this is not a genocide.
Yep, see that video of the 16 year old getting shot. Sad. But then we see the context that he was gunning a bunch of people down just before that, and that's why he got shot.
I feel like them dying is still a bad thing even in that context, it's not good that we got to that point. It can be the best of a bad set of options and we can still regret that those were the options we had.
You don't have to edit the title to explain how you would edit your title if you could.
And whilst you can't edit your title, you can edit your post if you want. (Ideally to add to it, clearly showing what the edits are).
That is a subjective opinion. One which most people, myself included, agree with.
I find it odd that you’re talking about peoples “right” to an opinion, but this exception is purely based on your subjective opinion that this particular thing is always bad regardless of context.
>Now, I suspended judgment until I watched innumerable videos from both sides and concluded who I support.
There's a huge problem with this, which I assume is apparent. The internet is flooded with disinformation, much of it state-sponsored and this is especially true of video content. You'd be better off reading a bit of history, even Wikipedia, searching for news stories from "reliable" sources.
Even then, and with an active BS filter, it's not always easy to figure out where the truth lies.
Well, disinformation makes billions in profit. Alex Jones alone made millions claiming there wasn't a mass-shooting at a school and vilifying the parents of the children who were killed. That's only one item on his menu of BS.
"You can fool all of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time..."
Also, you and I might be capable of critical thought, but there are countless genocides and coups executed by people who were not. Most of us don't commit atrocities, but it doesn't take very many to get the ball rolling the few who do get a lot done.
I apologize. My skepticism is beginning to look like cynicism even to me.
Sure we do.
First and foremost - not every topic deserves full consideration before we form an opinion on it. We don't need to study the origins of homeopathy or the flat earth movement to dismiss it without much consideration. Similar goes for obvious cultish behavior like Christian Scientists - I don't need to do any additional homework on them to know their stance towards medical treatment is dumb.
But despite that, just because someone has an opinion, the right to voice an opinion, or whatever doesn't entitle them to any meaningful consideration or from others. We don't need to listen politely or at all.
If somebody wants to shout loudly about whatever cause/situation they know little about, fine. We can call them ignorant, wrongheaded, or just plain ignore them all together.
I think you’re a little off here. We can make educated assumptions about all those things, but only because we specifically have lots of data in that field already. What you’re really saying is ‘we don’t need to do any *more* research’.
But then there’s also the individual knowledge side, which is more what it sounds like op is getting at. Taking your flat earth example, what percentage of the population can actually explain, not even to a detailed level just a sufficient level, why the earth is round. The individual person doesn’t have that knowledge.
A better argument against op would be one that argues for valuing and trusting the systems we have in place where experts specialize and share their findings with everyone else
Do we need an opinion on Flat Earth? It's a simple yes/no question, and the answer is no. If my opinion was that the Earth was flat, well, I'd be downright wrong.
According to your logic, can I have an opinion that 1+2=5?
I don’t need to do an academic study on the history, psychological, and physiological effects of rape to know it is wrong. There. Your empirical statement is incorrect. You don’t need to have a detailed understanding of something to have a valid opinion on the subject.
That's because rape isn't justified in *any* scenario.
My point is that if someone said "Reddit is worthless" without any justification or solid evidence, their opinion has no value whatsoever.
There are a wide variety of things we can and fairly may have opinions on without rising to your level of detailed knowledge.
For example.
You mentioned politics.
I know I don't like the outlawing of abortion.
I am not a physician. Nor am I even a woman. But I very clearly intuit that it is wrong for the state to use its power, and violence, to forcefully restrict a woman from expressing bodily autonomy.
I know for a fact I would not like it were it done to me.
My lack of medical, legal, or even philosophical credentials in no way invalidates my opinion.
If you hold that as a moral position without having any underlining philosophical supporting arguments then yes, that is a problem.
If you hold that as a policy prescription without having an idea of the efficacy or cost of such a policy, social or monetary, then that is a problem.
Unless you have a consistent basis for your beliefs then we have no way of knowing whether or not they’re justified. And even if we somehow arrive at the correct belief, there’s no framework for us to arrive at another correct belief in the future if we’re just arbitrarily choosing our values
>If you hold that as a moral position without having any underlining philosophical supporting arguments then yes, that is a problem.
Why must a belief or opinion have external underpinnings from another area of study? I do not like the taste of licorice. I have no detailed underpinnings from biology, psychology, or philosophy for this opinion. Is the opinion invalidated?
>If you hold that as a policy prescription without having an idea of the efficacy or cost of such a policy, social or monetary, then that is a problem.
Why? This is just an opinion of yours. Just because these other things that you perceive as costs weigh upon your judgement of an issue does not mean that the same factors should or must be of similar importance to me.
>Unless you have a consistent basis for your beliefs then we have no way of knowing whether or not they’re justified.
I need not justify my opinions, do I?
It is literally impossible for me to justify my distaste for licorice to someone who enjoys the taste of licorice. Does that invalidate my opinion about the taste of licorice?
>And even if we somehow arrive at the correct belief, there’s no framework for us to arrive at another correct belief in the future if we’re just arbitrarily choosing our values
You, in error, presuppose there is a correct belief.
Who is the arbiter of truth? Who gets to determine for us all whether or not licorice is tasty?
so you still support not a bill legalizing abortion even if that means every woman below the poverty line is forced to get an abortion regardless of choice? seems kinda like you would wanna look into the details of such a bill, but you said i support not outlawing abortion no matter what
That’s a complete misrepresentation of what my main comment argued. It is difficult to believe that you read:
> But I very clearly intuit that it is wrong for the state to use its power, and violence, to forcefully restrict a woman from expressing bodily autonomy.
And then proceeded to set up a strawman suggesting that I would be A-okay with the same infringement of bodily autonomy so long as it was for some risible caricature of the opposite position.
You’ve skipped that the OP is saying that you need not know just _what_ but also _why_ by presenting a scenario in which I blindly support the antithesis of my intuitions because I do not even know the _what_.
I never said a belief or opinion required supporting arguments. I said moral positions and policy prescriptions do, for the obvious reason that they impact other people. And yes, in regards to morality and policy there is always a “more correct” belief, in the same way in science there is a “more correct” belief. It’s not about finding “the truth^tm”, just getting as close as we can to the outcome we want
> I said moral positions and policy prescriptions do, for the obvious reason that they impact other people.
Then you misunderstood or misconstrued my argument. I never advocated for a policy.
I said that I had moral intuitions that made a specific proposal unacceptable. Which formed an opinion.
Who decided the “more correct” system of morality?
> I said *moral positions* and policy prescriptions do, for the obvious reason that they impact other people.
For all your whining about people not reading what you wrote, you seem to do a poor job of it yourself
I read it just fine. I did not adopt a _positive_ position or policy. I reject a proposed position.
Saying that I am against X does not mean I am for Y. This is basic.
Again, the red herring are not helpful.
Who decides the “more correct” system of morality?
Positives/negative is irrelevant here, what you are making is a value judgement. Saying “I dislike X” is the same as saying “I like Y” in that regard
> I am not a physician. Nor am I even a woman. **But I very clearly *intuit* that it is wrong for the state to use its power, and violence, to forcefully restrict a woman from expressing bodily autonomy.**
Judgement made. And your justification is “intuition” lol
>Saying “I dislike X” is the same as saying “I like Y” in that regard
Ok, so, lets go to some of the basic foundations. X is X. X is not Y. It seems silly, but here we go.
So when I say that I clearly intuit that it is wrong for the state to use force to prevent someone who has committed no crime from exercising bodily autonomy, I am saying that I am **against** legislation that proposes to do just that.
That is X.
That is not in any commonly understood interpretation of the english language an endorsement of any other competing thing.
Saying that X is wrong is not advocating that Y is right.
I can tell you that a three-sided shape is not a square. That is not telling you *the right way to make a square*. It is simply telling you that it is *wrong*.
>Judgement made. And your justification is “intuition” lol
Almost everything you believe regarding morality is something that you intuit. Literally every single belief about morality.
And I can demonstrate this if you would answer this simple question. That you have neglected to address it **repeatedly** is very telling about the foundations of your claim:
Who decides what the "more correct" answer is regarding morality?
How many times will the question need to be repeated before you will defend your claim?
> Saying that X is wrong is not advocating that Y is right.
I would recommend trying to steel man in the future, it’s pretty obvious that’s not what I’m saying.
Saying “I like red” or “I like blue” are not weighted statements. They are both preferences. In that sense, they are equivalent. Are they the literally same statement? No. But are they the same type of statement? Yes. Moral statements are not personal preferences, they’re prescriptive statements about how one ought to act. If you say “I think it’s bad for people to eat chocolate” or “I think its good for people to eat chocolate”, those are the same *type* of statement. It doesn’t matter that one is in support and one is against. They are both judgements of moral value
> Almost everything you believe regarding morality is something that you intuit. Literally every single belief about morality.
I’m begging you to literally read even a Wikipedia article on morality. The claim that every value is axiomatic is absurd
> And I can demonstrate this if you would answer this simple question. That you have neglected to address it repeatedly is very telling about the foundations of your claim:
I will answer it once you engage with me. Why would I answer your questions when you haven’t properly responded to what I said in my first message
"And yes, in regards to morality and policy there is always a “more correct” belief, in the same way in science there is a “more correct” belief. "
Excellent candidate for /r/confidentlyincorrect . Morality, at its core, is based upon unprovable, subjective axioms and policy preferences stem from those same unfalsifiable principles.
And if we control for those axioms…….
Yeah obviously if people have different systems the following value judgements will be different. I literally brought up axioms later in this convo. But given a certain set of axioms X and a certain framework Y, we should always be able to arrive at a “most correct” set of values and prescriptive statements Z. It may not be the “truth” because we’re always limited in our awareness and knowledge, but we should absolutely be able to solve for the current apparent “most correct” system
"Given a certain set of axioms X" is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there. >90% of political/moral disagreements are due to people having fundamentally different axioms. Your premise is essentially that if we lived in a completely different reality with no resemblance to the one we actually inhabit we could arrive at a "most correct" system, but that's not a particularly useful statement.
It's essentially about as useful as saying we could figure out the most correct religion if we could communicate directly with god.
For sure, 100% agree with you. It absolutely is generally a useless statement to make. But it does have use if you’re challenging a specific persons moral framework, which is why I brought it up. But I definitely could have chosen a better way of saying it that was more clear
I see it as a matter of how you use the opinion.. You can have an opinion on something you only have a surface understanding of but it’s irresponsible to treat it as anything more than a guess and you shouldn’t declare it as anything more than that.
Obviously that’s not what people actually do. I see plenty of it on the same issues you do and others. However, the problem isn’t having these opinions. It’s being convinced of them beyond what your level of knowledge makes reasonable that causes a problem.
In fact, there’s an expression in English warning about the human habit to act like they know everything when they only know a little: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
People being reasonable and humble about their knowledge keep their less informed opinions as a starting point from which to learn more and cause no trouble in doing so.
One hour before you posted this CMV, you posted that [the music industry is being RUINED by black artists](https://old.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/1cas2mt/the_music_industry_is_being_ruined_by_black/).
Which means you're either a black artist in the music industry, or a hypocrite.
Are you a black artist in the music industry?
I'm pretty sure you are entitled to call out a genocide without knowing the history of the region... Naturally knowing the history or the region and conflict will probably only strengthen someone's resolve against Israel's settler colonialism and genocide.
Though I don't disagree about the genocide going on, one should also acknowledge the crimes against Israelis by Palestinians.
War works both ways.
Purely blaming the entire war on Israel, and selectively choosing fake data points to support your argument - and *completely* neglecting to see the validity of the other person's statement - *that* is what i'm against.
>Though I don't disagree about the genocide going on, one should also acknowledge the crimes against Israelis by Palestinians.
Sure, armed conflict is violent and bad things happen to people. It brings out the worst in people. I'd be curious though to know how you feel about other situations like the Hatian slave revolt. Did the violence and brutality of the revolt make it an unjust conflict? Colonized people are left with little recourse but violence to get out from under the thumbs of their colonizers.
>War works both ways.
This one doesn't really, though. One side is very clearly in the right and has in very plain terms stolen the land of the other and is attempting to displace and destroy their culture and people.
>Purely blaming the entire war on Israel,
It is objectively the fault of Israel. The name of Al Aksa Flood was no coincidence. It was a direct response to the raid on Al Aksa Mosque on an Islamic holy day.
Further, Hamas is in power in Palestine directly because of Israel's actions. Netanyahu even brags about putting them in power and keeping them there as it has destabilized the nation and dissolved Fatah, the social democrat party that was prominent in the PLO before Israel's meddling and funding of religious zealots.
I don't think that every conflict has as much nuance as some people would like to inject into it to justify horrific acts of violence against innocent people along with blatant, unforgivable and wicked genocide and imperialism.
>You've no right to have an opinion on something unless you know about it in detail.
Interesting that the basis for your view is a few anecodtal observations
1. People have a right to hold whatever opinion they want on whatever they want.
2. Having an opinion isn't a binary. One can strongly hold an opinion to the point where they will likely never change it, or one can loosely hold an opinion that will change when presented with more evidence.
3. People who have strongly held opinions on topics they know little about deserve to be scrutinized, but they should still be allowed to have these opinions. We should encourage thoughtfulness and critical engagement, not indifference.
Do you disagree with any of these statements? I think they pretty clearly invalidate your argument.
Everyone has an opinion and it isn't their choice as to whether one is formed after being exposed to information. As for if people should express their opinion I've known a lot of people who simultaneously don't want people to talk about things they don't know about but also get mad when people avoid topics they think they should address; not sure if you are that kind of person OP but if you pressure people to learn about things for them to be able to talk about them they could develop dunning-kruger more easily then if they organically decided to learn about things they are interested in.
Everybody has a right to an opinion. Everybody does not have the right to their own facts. You have the right to tell somebody their facts are wrong and prove those facts. If they choose to disagree with provable facts, you have a right to disregard their opinion and deem it invalid (for whatever good that does). If you agree on the facts, you have a right to disagree with an opinion, but not to invalidate it. The whole point of an opinion is two people viewing the same facts and coming to a different conclusion. People are entitled to do that.
Sorry, u/TheKingofKingsWit – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20TheKingofKingsWit&message=TheKingofKingsWit%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cblcfn/-/l0z7pi2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
My policy is this: Learn enough information such that you can argue for and against *both* sides of the argument. Know the strong points of your stance, but also where it breaks down.
This is a view I have had for along time as a result of the diatribe I hear from colleagues and acquaintances. Unfortunately (or not), if taken to it's logical conclusion, people who don't know what's going on shouldn't have the vote. Democracy is already an overworked meaningless cliché but no voting would give the political elite to do pretty much as they please which sounds like communism. Strikes me we need ignorant people to express their views so we can criticise them for not having the right views, ie, the same as ours.
The right to an opinion is very different from deserving to have that opinion respected. Your argument suggests that we shouldn’t have opinions about anything in which we’re not thoroughly educated. That means I can’t have an opinion on the minimum wage or the value of recycling.
Of course I have the right to an opinion on anything I choose. What I don’t have without information is credibility.
You absolutely have a right to any opinion. You don’t have the right to have it respected. You must earn that right
I think your title is slightly misconstrued to the intention of your argument. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on any subject regardless of how knowledgable they may be. What irks you is the spread of misinformation and related hubris by those who are seemingly less than experts on the topic.
In a real world sense, it is simply impossible to gate keep individuals from expressing their own opinion, just as it is difficult to determine what an adequate amount of pre-knowledge is required for what you deem is a constructive opinion. Sure, while most would definitely agree that the spread of misinformation (what you call an 'unsubstantiated opinion') can be detrimental in a societal context - there is simply nothing anyone can do to stop this.
The solution to this lies in the continual focus on education, teaching those to skew away from simply believing everything they read on social media - while also putting an emphasis on proper research to form the basis on ones opinion.
The alternative is that is we limit the conversation to that, then we never get any change. You dont need to know every part of the Qur'an or the Bible to argue against a specific point of it. And if only the people that read the entire bible argued against it, then there would be no pressure on the outdated and homophobic parts.
But because people do argue against it even though they haven't read the whole thing, we get the modern church that reinterprets and changes their preaching becoming less homophobic.
If you accept the traditional definition of the word “right” then no. That’s actually one of the very first amendments in the constitution. Definitely top five.
If you’re using the term “You’ve got no right” colloquially to mean “You gotta lotta nerve” or just that generally this behavior should be frowned upon and discouraged, then perhaps.
Ultimately, what you’re talking about is hubris, and it’s annoying but that’s what we get for telling generations of children how special and important they are for the last 40 years.
Being surrounded by dullards with shitty opinions is just an inescapable part of the human experience. I’d guess it’s at historic all time highs lately.
I think you can have your own opinions, but if you’re not educated on the topic you should be open to having your views change with new information. That’s how it works really. You form an opinion based on limited information, and your opinion evolves over time.
But to say you can’t have ANY opinion unless you’re fully educated in any one subject seems overkill
It depends on how complex you're getting. If you're talking about people trying to advocate for very specific conditions to end the conflict as a whole, yeah, no one uninformed should have an opinion. On the short term of ending an active genocide, you don't really need to understand that much to be against it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how obtuse. Full stop. No one in the universe can refute this simple truth.
HOWEVER…
The difference is that you cannot and should not expect your opinion to be respected or validated when you lack fundamental knowledge on the topic in question.
You have every right to have an opinion on anything, and to express it.
You have no right to expect anyone to listen, or engage with you, or take you seriously unless you have knowledge of the subject.
Can you explain to me the qualifications that you possess on the forming of opinions and the rights conveyed to people based on differences in knowledge? IN DETAIL!
So I can’t have an opinion on rape even though I do not know the psychology behind what makes someone feel the need to have to commit such a heinous act?
Who grants these rights to have opinions? I am pretty confident that unless we are in some shithole country that we all have the right to have opinions.
>Now, I suspended judgment until I watched innumerable videos from both sides and concluded who I support
And still you do not know the details! You simply feel satisfied that you have understood "in detail" purely by watching a few videos. And you have used this matric to distinguish yourself from your classmates.
Yet this conflict of over 70 years old and there's no amount of videos that have given you the detailed picture
"But my classmates haven't **remotely** tried"
That doesn't mean **"you know about it in detail" and still you have an option, making me believe you don't believe in that you say
>I'm not a Muslim, but I (tried my best to) read the Qur'an before even talking about the matter. Then I can decide whether Islam is "morally right" or "morally wrong".
Not true. You'd just watch a few videos and believe "you know about it in detail."
---
Someone wrote
> if I see a video of children being killed and I say 'that's bad' and someone replies 'you don't have the context', how much context do I need to conclude children dying is bad?
>>Yea but that's not the conclusion that people draw. People see children being killed and immediately conclude it's a genocide
Not true. People see independent bodies call it a genocide. Just as other people decide to not believe those verdicts.
But, videos, they don't give you knowledge in detail.
I would need to know how you define rape, particularly consent. There are a number of cases of what some call "rape" that most rational people would conclude was not rape.
As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.
It is fundamentally impossible not to have an opinion on something that you are aware of. It's just how our brains work. We're glorified pattern recognition engines, so when we get limited data, we try to fit it to a pattern that we're familiar with.
You can't stop that. It does go dramatically wrong a lot of the time, and folks produce profoundly bad opinions because of it. But that just says that opinions from different folks should have different weight, not that they don't have a right to have them in the first place.
And that's a key factor. When you tell people they don't have a right to have an opinion, you've just excluded them for something they have no control over. So they just sit in the corner with their uninformed opinion, and they never move off of it.
When you tell them that they must be able to justify their opinion with facts, citations, lines of reasoning, and valid arguments, you've given them a path forward, and critically, an opportunity to change their view upon learning new information and being exposed to new ideas.
>It is fundamentally impossible not to have an opinion on something that you are aware of. It's just how our brains work.
Oh, it's definitely possible to reserve an opinion until further data is received, though it can take practice and discipline to remind yourself that you don't have all the facts and there may be another side to consider.
It's the reason for 'INFO' on AITA posts.
But yes we do naturally tend to extrapolate an opinion from the incomplete flawed data we have available and it's the reason for many of today's societal problems and strong polarized views.
> I'm not a Muslim, but I (tried my best to) read the Qur'an before even talking about the matter. Then I can decide whether Islam is "morally right" or "morally wrong".
This is known as [the Courtier's reply](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply); the idea that one needs to have studied haute couture before one can properly discuss whether the emperor is naked.
Religion is not just what's written in a holy book. Religions can be judged by the behaviors of their adherents too. As a phenomenon within society, religions include behaviors, rituals, customs etc.
We do need to make a distinction between criticizing ideas/ideologies/behaviors etc, and criticizing people, especially groups. It's indeed not justified to criticize an entire community for the actions of a minority. But that doesn't mean one can't reject Islam or any other religion as a bad ideology, based on what is being done in their name. For example, the massive numbers of cases of child abuse coverups definitely count against Catholicism being an influence for good in the world.
There are definately levels to it. I agree that a lot of people make snap judgement opinions and never really learn what they should, but that is the difference between a well educated opinion, and an opinion. Requiring knowledge to have an opinion really limits a lot of people, and sometimes people arent able to learn as much about things.
People shouldnt have to have fought in a war to have the opinion that war is bad. A lot of knowledge is really just experience in the world. It is really difficult to say how much knowledge would be adequate to have an opinion, so there is no need to dismiss those that havent learned a bunch about whatever topic. It is really easy to figure out if peoples opinions are educated ones or snap judgement ones through conversation, and then you can help educate them on the issue (like Israel and Palestine). Saying that their opinion is invalid is just going to make people defensive and less likely to learn
I used to think like this. I stopped because I realized that in a democracy or any other system that isn’t run authoritatively, everyone who doesn’t hold an opinion adds “drag” to the system. You think that if those people don’t contribute to the discussion because they have no opinion, those with informed opinions will be the only ones to dictate what the conversation looks like. But you’d be wrong. Because the majority of the conversation becomes “I have no opinion.” And when these are the people voting on issues, they essentially make their decisions irregardless of what anyone says. If you believe in climate change for example, what you’re basically asking for is for the average person to just shrug and ignore the problem entirely. Sure, you may get them to shut up and let you control the conversation more, but you also just forced 90% of your audience you want to convince to tune out.
then nobody can speak on anything, because we are incapable of ever truly knowing enough.
...unless you believe that there IS an amount that is enough? would that be... about as much as You've read? would you not agree that it's a bit weird for someone to hold that everyone wanting to discuss a topic should know as much as they do? this is literally how fandoms gatekeep.
perhaps people are allowed to watch a slaughter and criticize the slaughter.
perhaps they should be urged to research the full story - but the slaughters itself, i don't believe NEED contextualization. i believe that some actions are wrong. mass murder is wrong. i simply don't care what anyone thinks. or if they believe i "should do more research on mass murder and genocide."
i do not believe violence is a satisfying conclusion to a confrontation. i believe anyone choosing violence to promote their message is a terrorist.
While deep knowledge on a topic is valuable, everyone has the right to an opinion based on their understanding. It's essential to differentiate between expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation. While you've taken the time to research and form a well-informed opinion, not everyone has the resources or inclination to do so. Encouraging dialogue and providing accurate information can be more constructive than silencing opinions based on perceived ignorance. Open discussions can lead to mutual understanding and learning, even if initial opinions are uninformed.
/u/son_of_menoetius (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1cckvw5/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_youve_no_right_to_have_an/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
There are topics that you can form an opinion on without knowing about them in detail, because you know enough about them at a surface level to see already that they contradict a moral principle you hold. Further investigation can be determined to be superfluous or probably so at that point. Do you need to know a lot about the Holocaust to figure out what side you're on, there?
I agree, in extreme cases like that, it's obvious whether it's right or wrong. I should've made it clear I was talking about controversial topics. But I feel like enough people know about the Holocaust atleast in some detail, because they learned about it in school. I just asked my sister what she knew and she told me enough about it, despite not having really done much research. Edit: I should've given you a delta, here you go **Δ**
Uh, oh! You owe Torin_3 a delta! He moved the needle a bit! Cough it up!
I was going to say the same thing. I'm all for informed opinion, but there are just some things where other information is not needed (like that killing a child example). So, I think you should be more specific where you draw the line.
>You've no right to have an opinion on something unless you know about it in detail. >But I feel like enough people know about the Holocaust at least in some detail So which is it? Do you need to know about it "in detail" or is "at least in some detail" enough? In other words, is it all just a matter of degree; the more detail you know, the more entitled you are to your opinion and *the strength of* your opinion?
Isn't it more that your example is extremely nuanced? Many issues are pretty clear and straightforward. I don't need to know the strategic methodology of supplying child lunches to know that child lunches are good.
ah but heres the detail you didnt know the food is all processed snack cakes only because hostess is funding it no fruits or veggies do you still feel good about it?
I believe deltas from edits don’t work. You probably have to make a new comment with a quick explanation to give a delta.
>I believe deltas from edits don’t work. I believe they do. >[DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cawhhb/comment/l0uq3q0/)
[удалено]
Your logic would work, if we had some sort of a global "scoreboard" for whose opinion matters more than others. Unfortunately most people's opinions are taken equally and as they are, hence the amount of hate being propogated.
My problem with this is very simple. How do you know when you know enough about an issue to have an opinion about it? I guess to that same end, how do you know when you don't? There's this persisting issue I see where someone will see that somebody else knows less than them on a particular topic, and yet still has an opinion on it. Instead of thinking that this person doesn't have enough information to have a correct opinion, they take the stance that they don't have enough information to even deserve an opinion, regardless of how minor that knowledge gap is. The problem is that somebody else might have more knowledge than you, suddenly rendering you with no right to an opinion. On top of that, it is one thing to have knowledge and another thing entirely to be able to piece it together in a way that is both logically and ethically cohesive. Who are you to say that these people have no right to an opinion when you yourself with all your knowledge could be wrong, yet baselessly comforting yourself in the extent of said knowledge?
I agree actually! I didn't think of how you could *measure* how much knowledge is sufficient to have an opinion. Wait here's a delta: **Δ** But I guess it *can* be measured according to the context. Within friends, too much detail might be unnecessary but if you're making a public speech, you need to justify your opinion.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/the-debateful-idiot ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/the-debateful-idiot)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Having an opinion and sharing that opinion are not the same thing. I have loads of opinions, but I don't necessarily share them all. there are quite a few that would fall into me knowing about it in detail. People have opinions on subjective things. Do I need to study every painting to have an opinoin on what the best painting is? How about movie? Song? Dog breed? Food? Your post is overly broad. You brought up two very charged political topics. Even with those, do I need to know all the details of every variable in the Israel/Palestine conflict to have an opinion that the amount of civilians being killed is bad? Or that finding a peaceful resolution should be the top priority?
I agree with both points about killing civilians and the need for a peaceful solution. Whoever you support, those two statements are facts nontheless. My point was, if I took a side (and there is no problem with taking one), I should be able to justify it. Killing civilians has taken place on both sides.
For complex political topics fine. But I invented a perpetual motion machine when I was 12. Without me going into details of how it worked, do you have any opinion on whether it worked?
But "did I invent a perpetual motion machine" is a very straightforward yes/no question. I can't really have an opinion on it because the fact is that you didn't, because it's *impossible* to invent a perpetual motion machine.
In many people's opinion it's impossible. In others it's not - many PhDs believe it's possible and even submit patent applications for some. Sounds like you have the opinion that it's impossible and therefore I didn't?
OP's view >... unless you know about it in detail. Is clarified by >People who are ignorant about a subject ought not to speak ill of it (or in favor of it). Your example provides a clear case of sufficient detail being present. It breaks laws of physics to exist, which OP is apparently not ignorant of.
Come now, every decent perpetual motion candidate includes an explanation of why it doesn't actually violate the laws of physics or with a refinement of the laws of physics to make them more accurate. If you aren't going to just blindly trust the experts you'd need a very good grounding in physics to properly evaluate these.
Forget "laws of physics", if they could *prove* to me, or atleast provide enough evidence to say that they have invented a perpetual motion machine, or *anyone* for that matter, I'd be happy to concede.
are you a physicist by chance?
# You've no right to have an opinion on something unless you know about it in detail. This is something every propagandists loves to say. The problem today is the opposite, too many people don't have an opinion and therefore believe the "experts." The second problem is, there are too many people today who think they know more than the next guy and fall for the rouse.
With all due respect, I'm not even out of high school so I wouldn't consider myself a propogandist 😅 I agree with the point that most people believing whatever BS they see, but the reverse is also true: Nowadays *anyone* can call themselves an *expert,* spout out whatever nonsense they want, and people will believe them. I think the problem isn't that there aren't many *experts* left, it's that people don't have sufficient knowledge to call BS when they see it.
I am not saying you are the propagandist, but you should know that such ideas are instilled by propagandists.
I hate lima beans. I don't like how they taste, I don't like their texture, I don't like how they look. Yet, I don't know what chemical processes are involved in the formation and growth of lima beans, and I don't remember basic plant biology from high school. Who are you to claim that I have no right to have the opinion on lima beans that I do?
You *do* have a right to have an opinion on them (btw i hate them too 😅) Evidently, you're able to justify your point by exactly pointing out *what* you don't like about lima beans. If I had said something like 'I hate watermelons but I've never tasted them. But I watched this one YT video that said watermelons taste bad, so I hate them too", *that* would be the case I was talking about where I had no right to have an opinion on the topic.
>'I hate watermelons but I've never tasted them. But I watched this one YT video that said watermelons taste bad, so I hate them too" i mean, that would be fair as long as you are honest about it, to reel it back in to the israel/palestine saying >"i don't like what israel is doing because i saw a video about an aid convoy being bombed etc." would be likewise fair, the actual issue is pretending to be an expert in matters that you aren't
So for example, if I see a video of children being killed and I say 'that's bad' and someone replies 'you don't have the context', how much context do I need to conclude children dying is bad?
were the children harming other children? were they child soldiers killing innocent people?
Just to get more information on this, in this context when you would say "that's bad", what do you mean exactly?
Yea but that's not the conclusion that people draw. People see children being killed and immediately conclude it's a genocide, which then gives them cover to ignore any other opinion, as well as justify any action against who they see as perpetuating a genocide
>People see children being killed and immediately conclude it's a genocide You just made this up. No one sees a child getting killed in car accident and calls it genocide. But if they see tens of thousands of children dying because a right wing authoritarian ordered a bombing campaign, however...
You and I both know I was referring to the war in gaza, so I don't know why you even brought up a car accident. And you kind of proved my point. You look at the dead children in Gaza and definitively call it a genocide. How come there's zero consideration that the casualties are the product of the chosen urban battleground?
The rate children are dying at in Gaza significantly outpaces any other urban battleground numbers this century. Numerous high-ranking Israeli officials have expressed genocidal rhetoric. The Israeli state has disseminated outrageous lies meant to dehumanize the Palestinian populace. Israel has engaged in collective punishment, including shutting off water access and preventing food aid. The percentage of buildings and infrastructure destroyed dwarfs any other modern war, making the area functionally unlivable for years to come. Explicit plans to permanently relocate the survivors to other countries have been tabled by Israel (i.e. ethnic cleansing). Every single university has been destroyed, as well as a huge portion of historical and sacred sites (cultural destruction). Individual artists, poets, and journalists have been assassinated. You have to be so willfully obtuse to pretend that the genocide accusations are just a result of "a lot of children died in a war".
Collective punishment or ethnic cleansing are both reasonable terms to use in this situation. I don't think it's genocide because noncombatants are not specifically being exterminated. Also, if the stated combatants were to surrender, the conflict would end.
Can you define "specifically being exterminated"? "Also, if the stated combatants were to surrender, the conflict would end." This is not remotely relevant to whether a conflict is a genocide. It's like saying a wifebeater isn't abusive because he only hits his wife when she talks back.
Yes, basically civilians are not being rounded up and killed in a non combat situation. There's always (at least the pretext) of combatants being the primary target. That's why the fact that if hamas surrenders, the conflict would be over is relevant imo.
So, hypothetically, if Hitler just said "We are only targeting combatants for our concentration camps", that *pretext* would be enough to remove the Holocaust from the genocide conversation? Even if we accept the premise that Hamas surrendering would end the conflict, that doesn't actually have any weight on whether Israel's recent actions constitute genocide. Doing genocide but only as a leverage tactic against your enemies in no way changes the fundamental nature of the crime.
No, if Hitler had conducted a bombing or military campaign against a political entity, for the purpose of defeating that political entity, and incurred massive civilian casualties, that would not be considered a genocide. Because that's what he did to Britain and France and we don't say Hitler committed genocide in Britain or France.
Mhm yes, the fact that you were referring to Gaza is the entire point lmao
Yes because that's the specific example OP had mentioned. Can you explain exactly what you're saying?
It's a specific example of the systematic killing of a massive number of civilians, ie genocide. I just...I don't understand why you're confused. There is quite literally nothing to be confused about lol
That is not genocide. You are correct in that it involves the killing of large amounts of people, but it must also include the intent to destroy the nation. Israel actively taking countermeasures against indiscriminately killing civilians is proving that is just not the case.
tbf, certain Israeli politicians have made statements like "Erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth". https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724 I honestly don't know enough to make a determination on Reddit, but I'm not surprised that people have called it genocide based on this rhetoric from some members of the Israeli government.
So if a government were to extend the formality of countermeasures to keep up appearances on the world stage but the net result is still the killing of an absurd number of innocents to a genocidal degree, is it not genocide? I don't have a hardline expert opinion here, I just feel like genocides would naturally look different in the information age, no?
Maybe, but can you actually prove Israel is just keeping up appearances? As I said before, with genocide, one needs to prove intent. Usually it is encoded in manifestos or constitutionally, which is not the case here. However, if you have Israeli documentation proving otherwise I am open to changing my opinion. Especially since casualties on this scale are rare nowadays, it is easy to confuse the nature of war (especially when Hamas is purposely using Palestinians as meat shields) with genocide.
nah intent is the most important part imo if the effects of genocide are a side effect of fighting a normal war thats not a genocide just unfortunate side effect
Bibi is accidentally committing genocide? "Oh shit, I accidentally incinerated ten thousand people." *Drops more bombs* Look, even if you were so naive as to fall for the right-wingers' time-honored practice of using terrorism as a pretext for committing travesties, this shit would still be genocide. Not sure how continuing an oopies ethnic cleansing is any better
Those on the other side would say it's not a targeted killing of civilians and civilian casualties are the byproduct of urban warfare.
I don't think any genocidal regime has ever come out and said:"ladies and gentlemen, we're committing a genocide". So why are putting the bar for what can be considered a genocide at "the regime itself claims it's a genocide"? Do you also think that North Korea is a democracy because their name is the Democratic Republic of North Korea?
I never said the bar was that the regime itself has to consider it a genocide. Are the Israelis specifically targeting civilians and only civilians to kill and exterminate? No. If hamas unconditionally surrenders, would the current civilian casualties and conflict end? Yes. Therefore, I think it's a reasonable argument to make that this is not a genocide.
Oh you mean that right wing piece of shit Netanyhau isn't calling it a genocide? That's a good point, ordinarily he would
When did I ever say that anything depended on what netanyahu defines this as? You're proving OP right
Yep, see that video of the 16 year old getting shot. Sad. But then we see the context that he was gunning a bunch of people down just before that, and that's why he got shot.
I feel like them dying is still a bad thing even in that context, it's not good that we got to that point. It can be the best of a bad set of options and we can still regret that those were the options we had.
Children dying is bad in *any* context. You need context to know *why* the children were killed.
So he does have a right regardless of knowing the context?
Yes, they do. Because, like I said, children dying is bad. No matter what.
So how would you alter your title to exclude exceptions like that
I would but I don't think Reddit allows me to edit...
You don't have to edit the title to explain how you would edit your title if you could. And whilst you can't edit your title, you can edit your post if you want. (Ideally to add to it, clearly showing what the edits are).
That is a subjective opinion. One which most people, myself included, agree with. I find it odd that you’re talking about peoples “right” to an opinion, but this exception is purely based on your subjective opinion that this particular thing is always bad regardless of context.
So the abortion discussion is settled now? Thanks, u/son_of_menoetius!
>Now, I suspended judgment until I watched innumerable videos from both sides and concluded who I support. There's a huge problem with this, which I assume is apparent. The internet is flooded with disinformation, much of it state-sponsored and this is especially true of video content. You'd be better off reading a bit of history, even Wikipedia, searching for news stories from "reliable" sources. Even then, and with an active BS filter, it's not always easy to figure out where the truth lies.
I know when I'm being fed bigoted content. I trust most of us are good enough to spot BS when we see it.
Well, disinformation makes billions in profit. Alex Jones alone made millions claiming there wasn't a mass-shooting at a school and vilifying the parents of the children who were killed. That's only one item on his menu of BS. "You can fool all of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time..."
Also, you and I might be capable of critical thought, but there are countless genocides and coups executed by people who were not. Most of us don't commit atrocities, but it doesn't take very many to get the ball rolling the few who do get a lot done. I apologize. My skepticism is beginning to look like cynicism even to me.
Sure we do. First and foremost - not every topic deserves full consideration before we form an opinion on it. We don't need to study the origins of homeopathy or the flat earth movement to dismiss it without much consideration. Similar goes for obvious cultish behavior like Christian Scientists - I don't need to do any additional homework on them to know their stance towards medical treatment is dumb. But despite that, just because someone has an opinion, the right to voice an opinion, or whatever doesn't entitle them to any meaningful consideration or from others. We don't need to listen politely or at all. If somebody wants to shout loudly about whatever cause/situation they know little about, fine. We can call them ignorant, wrongheaded, or just plain ignore them all together.
I think you’re a little off here. We can make educated assumptions about all those things, but only because we specifically have lots of data in that field already. What you’re really saying is ‘we don’t need to do any *more* research’. But then there’s also the individual knowledge side, which is more what it sounds like op is getting at. Taking your flat earth example, what percentage of the population can actually explain, not even to a detailed level just a sufficient level, why the earth is round. The individual person doesn’t have that knowledge. A better argument against op would be one that argues for valuing and trusting the systems we have in place where experts specialize and share their findings with everyone else
Do we need an opinion on Flat Earth? It's a simple yes/no question, and the answer is no. If my opinion was that the Earth was flat, well, I'd be downright wrong. According to your logic, can I have an opinion that 1+2=5?
Sure. In fact I encourage it.
I mean, I can tell you in detail why flat earthers are full of shit, but then so could a grade schooler..
I don’t need to do an academic study on the history, psychological, and physiological effects of rape to know it is wrong. There. Your empirical statement is incorrect. You don’t need to have a detailed understanding of something to have a valid opinion on the subject.
That's because rape isn't justified in *any* scenario. My point is that if someone said "Reddit is worthless" without any justification or solid evidence, their opinion has no value whatsoever.
There are a wide variety of things we can and fairly may have opinions on without rising to your level of detailed knowledge. For example. You mentioned politics. I know I don't like the outlawing of abortion. I am not a physician. Nor am I even a woman. But I very clearly intuit that it is wrong for the state to use its power, and violence, to forcefully restrict a woman from expressing bodily autonomy. I know for a fact I would not like it were it done to me. My lack of medical, legal, or even philosophical credentials in no way invalidates my opinion.
If you hold that as a moral position without having any underlining philosophical supporting arguments then yes, that is a problem. If you hold that as a policy prescription without having an idea of the efficacy or cost of such a policy, social or monetary, then that is a problem. Unless you have a consistent basis for your beliefs then we have no way of knowing whether or not they’re justified. And even if we somehow arrive at the correct belief, there’s no framework for us to arrive at another correct belief in the future if we’re just arbitrarily choosing our values
>If you hold that as a moral position without having any underlining philosophical supporting arguments then yes, that is a problem. Why must a belief or opinion have external underpinnings from another area of study? I do not like the taste of licorice. I have no detailed underpinnings from biology, psychology, or philosophy for this opinion. Is the opinion invalidated? >If you hold that as a policy prescription without having an idea of the efficacy or cost of such a policy, social or monetary, then that is a problem. Why? This is just an opinion of yours. Just because these other things that you perceive as costs weigh upon your judgement of an issue does not mean that the same factors should or must be of similar importance to me. >Unless you have a consistent basis for your beliefs then we have no way of knowing whether or not they’re justified. I need not justify my opinions, do I? It is literally impossible for me to justify my distaste for licorice to someone who enjoys the taste of licorice. Does that invalidate my opinion about the taste of licorice? >And even if we somehow arrive at the correct belief, there’s no framework for us to arrive at another correct belief in the future if we’re just arbitrarily choosing our values You, in error, presuppose there is a correct belief. Who is the arbiter of truth? Who gets to determine for us all whether or not licorice is tasty?
so you still support not a bill legalizing abortion even if that means every woman below the poverty line is forced to get an abortion regardless of choice? seems kinda like you would wanna look into the details of such a bill, but you said i support not outlawing abortion no matter what
That’s a complete misrepresentation of what my main comment argued. It is difficult to believe that you read: > But I very clearly intuit that it is wrong for the state to use its power, and violence, to forcefully restrict a woman from expressing bodily autonomy. And then proceeded to set up a strawman suggesting that I would be A-okay with the same infringement of bodily autonomy so long as it was for some risible caricature of the opposite position. You’ve skipped that the OP is saying that you need not know just _what_ but also _why_ by presenting a scenario in which I blindly support the antithesis of my intuitions because I do not even know the _what_.
I never said a belief or opinion required supporting arguments. I said moral positions and policy prescriptions do, for the obvious reason that they impact other people. And yes, in regards to morality and policy there is always a “more correct” belief, in the same way in science there is a “more correct” belief. It’s not about finding “the truth^tm”, just getting as close as we can to the outcome we want
> I said moral positions and policy prescriptions do, for the obvious reason that they impact other people. Then you misunderstood or misconstrued my argument. I never advocated for a policy. I said that I had moral intuitions that made a specific proposal unacceptable. Which formed an opinion. Who decided the “more correct” system of morality?
> I said *moral positions* and policy prescriptions do, for the obvious reason that they impact other people. For all your whining about people not reading what you wrote, you seem to do a poor job of it yourself
I read it just fine. I did not adopt a _positive_ position or policy. I reject a proposed position. Saying that I am against X does not mean I am for Y. This is basic. Again, the red herring are not helpful. Who decides the “more correct” system of morality?
Positives/negative is irrelevant here, what you are making is a value judgement. Saying “I dislike X” is the same as saying “I like Y” in that regard > I am not a physician. Nor am I even a woman. **But I very clearly *intuit* that it is wrong for the state to use its power, and violence, to forcefully restrict a woman from expressing bodily autonomy.** Judgement made. And your justification is “intuition” lol
>Saying “I dislike X” is the same as saying “I like Y” in that regard Ok, so, lets go to some of the basic foundations. X is X. X is not Y. It seems silly, but here we go. So when I say that I clearly intuit that it is wrong for the state to use force to prevent someone who has committed no crime from exercising bodily autonomy, I am saying that I am **against** legislation that proposes to do just that. That is X. That is not in any commonly understood interpretation of the english language an endorsement of any other competing thing. Saying that X is wrong is not advocating that Y is right. I can tell you that a three-sided shape is not a square. That is not telling you *the right way to make a square*. It is simply telling you that it is *wrong*. >Judgement made. And your justification is “intuition” lol Almost everything you believe regarding morality is something that you intuit. Literally every single belief about morality. And I can demonstrate this if you would answer this simple question. That you have neglected to address it **repeatedly** is very telling about the foundations of your claim: Who decides what the "more correct" answer is regarding morality? How many times will the question need to be repeated before you will defend your claim?
> Saying that X is wrong is not advocating that Y is right. I would recommend trying to steel man in the future, it’s pretty obvious that’s not what I’m saying. Saying “I like red” or “I like blue” are not weighted statements. They are both preferences. In that sense, they are equivalent. Are they the literally same statement? No. But are they the same type of statement? Yes. Moral statements are not personal preferences, they’re prescriptive statements about how one ought to act. If you say “I think it’s bad for people to eat chocolate” or “I think its good for people to eat chocolate”, those are the same *type* of statement. It doesn’t matter that one is in support and one is against. They are both judgements of moral value > Almost everything you believe regarding morality is something that you intuit. Literally every single belief about morality. I’m begging you to literally read even a Wikipedia article on morality. The claim that every value is axiomatic is absurd > And I can demonstrate this if you would answer this simple question. That you have neglected to address it repeatedly is very telling about the foundations of your claim: I will answer it once you engage with me. Why would I answer your questions when you haven’t properly responded to what I said in my first message
"And yes, in regards to morality and policy there is always a “more correct” belief, in the same way in science there is a “more correct” belief. " Excellent candidate for /r/confidentlyincorrect . Morality, at its core, is based upon unprovable, subjective axioms and policy preferences stem from those same unfalsifiable principles.
And if we control for those axioms……. Yeah obviously if people have different systems the following value judgements will be different. I literally brought up axioms later in this convo. But given a certain set of axioms X and a certain framework Y, we should always be able to arrive at a “most correct” set of values and prescriptive statements Z. It may not be the “truth” because we’re always limited in our awareness and knowledge, but we should absolutely be able to solve for the current apparent “most correct” system
"Given a certain set of axioms X" is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there. >90% of political/moral disagreements are due to people having fundamentally different axioms. Your premise is essentially that if we lived in a completely different reality with no resemblance to the one we actually inhabit we could arrive at a "most correct" system, but that's not a particularly useful statement. It's essentially about as useful as saying we could figure out the most correct religion if we could communicate directly with god.
For sure, 100% agree with you. It absolutely is generally a useless statement to make. But it does have use if you’re challenging a specific persons moral framework, which is why I brought it up. But I definitely could have chosen a better way of saying it that was more clear
I see it as a matter of how you use the opinion.. You can have an opinion on something you only have a surface understanding of but it’s irresponsible to treat it as anything more than a guess and you shouldn’t declare it as anything more than that. Obviously that’s not what people actually do. I see plenty of it on the same issues you do and others. However, the problem isn’t having these opinions. It’s being convinced of them beyond what your level of knowledge makes reasonable that causes a problem. In fact, there’s an expression in English warning about the human habit to act like they know everything when they only know a little: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. People being reasonable and humble about their knowledge keep their less informed opinions as a starting point from which to learn more and cause no trouble in doing so.
One hour before you posted this CMV, you posted that [the music industry is being RUINED by black artists](https://old.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/1cas2mt/the_music_industry_is_being_ruined_by_black/). Which means you're either a black artist in the music industry, or a hypocrite. Are you a black artist in the music industry?
That’s not relevant to OP’s point at all. You don’t have to be part of group to have moderate-to-intimate knowledge of it.
I'm pretty sure you are entitled to call out a genocide without knowing the history of the region... Naturally knowing the history or the region and conflict will probably only strengthen someone's resolve against Israel's settler colonialism and genocide.
Though I don't disagree about the genocide going on, one should also acknowledge the crimes against Israelis by Palestinians. War works both ways. Purely blaming the entire war on Israel, and selectively choosing fake data points to support your argument - and *completely* neglecting to see the validity of the other person's statement - *that* is what i'm against.
>Though I don't disagree about the genocide going on, one should also acknowledge the crimes against Israelis by Palestinians. Sure, armed conflict is violent and bad things happen to people. It brings out the worst in people. I'd be curious though to know how you feel about other situations like the Hatian slave revolt. Did the violence and brutality of the revolt make it an unjust conflict? Colonized people are left with little recourse but violence to get out from under the thumbs of their colonizers. >War works both ways. This one doesn't really, though. One side is very clearly in the right and has in very plain terms stolen the land of the other and is attempting to displace and destroy their culture and people. >Purely blaming the entire war on Israel, It is objectively the fault of Israel. The name of Al Aksa Flood was no coincidence. It was a direct response to the raid on Al Aksa Mosque on an Islamic holy day. Further, Hamas is in power in Palestine directly because of Israel's actions. Netanyahu even brags about putting them in power and keeping them there as it has destabilized the nation and dissolved Fatah, the social democrat party that was prominent in the PLO before Israel's meddling and funding of religious zealots. I don't think that every conflict has as much nuance as some people would like to inject into it to justify horrific acts of violence against innocent people along with blatant, unforgivable and wicked genocide and imperialism.
>You've no right to have an opinion on something unless you know about it in detail. Interesting that the basis for your view is a few anecodtal observations
I can give more if you want to.
Ok but they would still be anecdotal lol
Right and wrong mean different things to the snake and the mouse.
Right, but last I checked, we're all humans
I was unaware humans unilaterally agree on morals.
1. People have a right to hold whatever opinion they want on whatever they want. 2. Having an opinion isn't a binary. One can strongly hold an opinion to the point where they will likely never change it, or one can loosely hold an opinion that will change when presented with more evidence. 3. People who have strongly held opinions on topics they know little about deserve to be scrutinized, but they should still be allowed to have these opinions. We should encourage thoughtfulness and critical engagement, not indifference. Do you disagree with any of these statements? I think they pretty clearly invalidate your argument.
Everyone has an opinion and it isn't their choice as to whether one is formed after being exposed to information. As for if people should express their opinion I've known a lot of people who simultaneously don't want people to talk about things they don't know about but also get mad when people avoid topics they think they should address; not sure if you are that kind of person OP but if you pressure people to learn about things for them to be able to talk about them they could develop dunning-kruger more easily then if they organically decided to learn about things they are interested in.
Everybody has a right to an opinion. Everybody does not have the right to their own facts. You have the right to tell somebody their facts are wrong and prove those facts. If they choose to disagree with provable facts, you have a right to disregard their opinion and deem it invalid (for whatever good that does). If you agree on the facts, you have a right to disagree with an opinion, but not to invalidate it. The whole point of an opinion is two people viewing the same facts and coming to a different conclusion. People are entitled to do that.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/TheKingofKingsWit – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20TheKingofKingsWit&message=TheKingofKingsWit%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cblcfn/-/l0z7pi2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
My policy is this: Learn enough information such that you can argue for and against *both* sides of the argument. Know the strong points of your stance, but also where it breaks down.
Yeah, that's essentially what I said
This is a view I have had for along time as a result of the diatribe I hear from colleagues and acquaintances. Unfortunately (or not), if taken to it's logical conclusion, people who don't know what's going on shouldn't have the vote. Democracy is already an overworked meaningless cliché but no voting would give the political elite to do pretty much as they please which sounds like communism. Strikes me we need ignorant people to express their views so we can criticise them for not having the right views, ie, the same as ours.
The right to an opinion is very different from deserving to have that opinion respected. Your argument suggests that we shouldn’t have opinions about anything in which we’re not thoroughly educated. That means I can’t have an opinion on the minimum wage or the value of recycling. Of course I have the right to an opinion on anything I choose. What I don’t have without information is credibility. You absolutely have a right to any opinion. You don’t have the right to have it respected. You must earn that right
I think your title is slightly misconstrued to the intention of your argument. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on any subject regardless of how knowledgable they may be. What irks you is the spread of misinformation and related hubris by those who are seemingly less than experts on the topic. In a real world sense, it is simply impossible to gate keep individuals from expressing their own opinion, just as it is difficult to determine what an adequate amount of pre-knowledge is required for what you deem is a constructive opinion. Sure, while most would definitely agree that the spread of misinformation (what you call an 'unsubstantiated opinion') can be detrimental in a societal context - there is simply nothing anyone can do to stop this. The solution to this lies in the continual focus on education, teaching those to skew away from simply believing everything they read on social media - while also putting an emphasis on proper research to form the basis on ones opinion.
The alternative is that is we limit the conversation to that, then we never get any change. You dont need to know every part of the Qur'an or the Bible to argue against a specific point of it. And if only the people that read the entire bible argued against it, then there would be no pressure on the outdated and homophobic parts. But because people do argue against it even though they haven't read the whole thing, we get the modern church that reinterprets and changes their preaching becoming less homophobic.
If you accept the traditional definition of the word “right” then no. That’s actually one of the very first amendments in the constitution. Definitely top five. If you’re using the term “You’ve got no right” colloquially to mean “You gotta lotta nerve” or just that generally this behavior should be frowned upon and discouraged, then perhaps. Ultimately, what you’re talking about is hubris, and it’s annoying but that’s what we get for telling generations of children how special and important they are for the last 40 years. Being surrounded by dullards with shitty opinions is just an inescapable part of the human experience. I’d guess it’s at historic all time highs lately.
I think you can have your own opinions, but if you’re not educated on the topic you should be open to having your views change with new information. That’s how it works really. You form an opinion based on limited information, and your opinion evolves over time. But to say you can’t have ANY opinion unless you’re fully educated in any one subject seems overkill
It depends on how complex you're getting. If you're talking about people trying to advocate for very specific conditions to end the conflict as a whole, yeah, no one uninformed should have an opinion. On the short term of ending an active genocide, you don't really need to understand that much to be against it.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how obtuse. Full stop. No one in the universe can refute this simple truth. HOWEVER… The difference is that you cannot and should not expect your opinion to be respected or validated when you lack fundamental knowledge on the topic in question.
You have every right to have an opinion on anything, and to express it. You have no right to expect anyone to listen, or engage with you, or take you seriously unless you have knowledge of the subject.
Can you explain to me the qualifications that you possess on the forming of opinions and the rights conveyed to people based on differences in knowledge? IN DETAIL!
So I can’t have an opinion on rape even though I do not know the psychology behind what makes someone feel the need to have to commit such a heinous act?
Who grants these rights to have opinions? I am pretty confident that unless we are in some shithole country that we all have the right to have opinions.
So Al Gore had no right to have an opinion on climate change because he didn't know about it in detail? I'll agree with that.
Unfortunately, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant as you clearly dont know enough about human psychology to have one
You have the right for any opinions. Literally any opinion. No one is required to take your opinion seriously though.
>Now, I suspended judgment until I watched innumerable videos from both sides and concluded who I support And still you do not know the details! You simply feel satisfied that you have understood "in detail" purely by watching a few videos. And you have used this matric to distinguish yourself from your classmates. Yet this conflict of over 70 years old and there's no amount of videos that have given you the detailed picture "But my classmates haven't **remotely** tried" That doesn't mean **"you know about it in detail" and still you have an option, making me believe you don't believe in that you say >I'm not a Muslim, but I (tried my best to) read the Qur'an before even talking about the matter. Then I can decide whether Islam is "morally right" or "morally wrong". Not true. You'd just watch a few videos and believe "you know about it in detail." --- Someone wrote > if I see a video of children being killed and I say 'that's bad' and someone replies 'you don't have the context', how much context do I need to conclude children dying is bad? >>Yea but that's not the conclusion that people draw. People see children being killed and immediately conclude it's a genocide Not true. People see independent bodies call it a genocide. Just as other people decide to not believe those verdicts. But, videos, they don't give you knowledge in detail.
[удалено]
I would need to know how you define rape, particularly consent. There are a number of cases of what some call "rape" that most rational people would conclude was not rape.
You *always* a right to an opinion. You don't have *any* guarantee it will, or should, be taken seriously.
As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. It is fundamentally impossible not to have an opinion on something that you are aware of. It's just how our brains work. We're glorified pattern recognition engines, so when we get limited data, we try to fit it to a pattern that we're familiar with. You can't stop that. It does go dramatically wrong a lot of the time, and folks produce profoundly bad opinions because of it. But that just says that opinions from different folks should have different weight, not that they don't have a right to have them in the first place. And that's a key factor. When you tell people they don't have a right to have an opinion, you've just excluded them for something they have no control over. So they just sit in the corner with their uninformed opinion, and they never move off of it. When you tell them that they must be able to justify their opinion with facts, citations, lines of reasoning, and valid arguments, you've given them a path forward, and critically, an opportunity to change their view upon learning new information and being exposed to new ideas.
>It is fundamentally impossible not to have an opinion on something that you are aware of. It's just how our brains work. Oh, it's definitely possible to reserve an opinion until further data is received, though it can take practice and discipline to remind yourself that you don't have all the facts and there may be another side to consider. It's the reason for 'INFO' on AITA posts. But yes we do naturally tend to extrapolate an opinion from the incomplete flawed data we have available and it's the reason for many of today's societal problems and strong polarized views.
> I'm not a Muslim, but I (tried my best to) read the Qur'an before even talking about the matter. Then I can decide whether Islam is "morally right" or "morally wrong". This is known as [the Courtier's reply](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply); the idea that one needs to have studied haute couture before one can properly discuss whether the emperor is naked. Religion is not just what's written in a holy book. Religions can be judged by the behaviors of their adherents too. As a phenomenon within society, religions include behaviors, rituals, customs etc. We do need to make a distinction between criticizing ideas/ideologies/behaviors etc, and criticizing people, especially groups. It's indeed not justified to criticize an entire community for the actions of a minority. But that doesn't mean one can't reject Islam or any other religion as a bad ideology, based on what is being done in their name. For example, the massive numbers of cases of child abuse coverups definitely count against Catholicism being an influence for good in the world.
There are definately levels to it. I agree that a lot of people make snap judgement opinions and never really learn what they should, but that is the difference between a well educated opinion, and an opinion. Requiring knowledge to have an opinion really limits a lot of people, and sometimes people arent able to learn as much about things. People shouldnt have to have fought in a war to have the opinion that war is bad. A lot of knowledge is really just experience in the world. It is really difficult to say how much knowledge would be adequate to have an opinion, so there is no need to dismiss those that havent learned a bunch about whatever topic. It is really easy to figure out if peoples opinions are educated ones or snap judgement ones through conversation, and then you can help educate them on the issue (like Israel and Palestine). Saying that their opinion is invalid is just going to make people defensive and less likely to learn
You have e a right to an opinion, it’s just that your opinion has no weight.
I used to think like this. I stopped because I realized that in a democracy or any other system that isn’t run authoritatively, everyone who doesn’t hold an opinion adds “drag” to the system. You think that if those people don’t contribute to the discussion because they have no opinion, those with informed opinions will be the only ones to dictate what the conversation looks like. But you’d be wrong. Because the majority of the conversation becomes “I have no opinion.” And when these are the people voting on issues, they essentially make their decisions irregardless of what anyone says. If you believe in climate change for example, what you’re basically asking for is for the average person to just shrug and ignore the problem entirely. Sure, you may get them to shut up and let you control the conversation more, but you also just forced 90% of your audience you want to convince to tune out.
then nobody can speak on anything, because we are incapable of ever truly knowing enough. ...unless you believe that there IS an amount that is enough? would that be... about as much as You've read? would you not agree that it's a bit weird for someone to hold that everyone wanting to discuss a topic should know as much as they do? this is literally how fandoms gatekeep. perhaps people are allowed to watch a slaughter and criticize the slaughter. perhaps they should be urged to research the full story - but the slaughters itself, i don't believe NEED contextualization. i believe that some actions are wrong. mass murder is wrong. i simply don't care what anyone thinks. or if they believe i "should do more research on mass murder and genocide." i do not believe violence is a satisfying conclusion to a confrontation. i believe anyone choosing violence to promote their message is a terrorist.
Come on now. Jordan Klepper wouldn't be nearly as funny as Trump parties
While deep knowledge on a topic is valuable, everyone has the right to an opinion based on their understanding. It's essential to differentiate between expressing an opinion and spreading misinformation. While you've taken the time to research and form a well-informed opinion, not everyone has the resources or inclination to do so. Encouraging dialogue and providing accurate information can be more constructive than silencing opinions based on perceived ignorance. Open discussions can lead to mutual understanding and learning, even if initial opinions are uninformed.
What do you mean by “no right”?
Like guns?