Zjf

I wholeheartedly agree with the earlier assertion that people in our country (and our world) should be having these kinds of discussions and hashing things out in a reasonable, civilized way. Otherwise, none of our stewing tensions and misunderstandings and lines of flawed logic will ever get fixed or resolved! These sorts of conversations are a big part of how we grow as a society, little by little. A number of commenters here have cited the fact that certain statements were just a person's opinion, or have reminded us of the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are two problematic lines of thought related to the concept of opinions that tend to arise in debates and heated discussions such as this one, which I would like to define and call out right here. FALLACY #1: The "I'm entitled to my opinion" fallacy (also called the "I have a right to my opinion" fallacy) This fallacy occurs when someone uses the mere fact that they are entitled to an opinion as a shield, so that they can avoid the requirement (in debate and discourse) to provide a reasonable justification or evidence for their position. It's often employed in situations where a person's viewpoint lacks a strong factual or logical basis. This fallacy is a form of intellectual evasion and doesn't contribute to productive or meaningful discourse. To be clear: It is true that each person in a civil debate is entitled to an opinion. That much is pretty much universally agreed upon, and nobody is arguing against that. HOWEVER, the fact that we have that entitlement/right does NOT mean that we aren't still obligated to provide facts and logical reasoning to justify our opinion and to defend it against scrutiny from others in a debate. In other words: Yeah, you have a right to take a side or a position in a debate, but if you want to share your opinion with others in the sphere of public discourse, then that comes with the responsibility to support and defend your position against critiques from your opponents, and to do so in a rational and civil manner. Nobody gets a "free pass." Nobody gets immunity from having their ideas challenged in the forum of public discourse. If it's too much of a mental burden or strain for you to have to logically defend a particular opinion of yours, then you are quite at liberty to keep that opinion to yourself until you're feeling more up to the task of supporting it. FALLACY #2: The "That's just your opinion" fallacy (also called the appeal to personal belief fallacy or the subjectivist fallacy) If someone presents a well-reasoned argument and their opponent responds, "Well, that's just your opinion," without addressing the substance of the argument, then the opponent is guilty of using this fallacy. To be clear: It can be important to distinguish between a.) matters of personal preference or subjective judgment and b.) matters of objective fact or logic when discussing opinions in arguments or debates. HOWEVER, simply labeling someone's position as an opinion does not automatically invalidate it if the position is backed up by reasonable arguments and evidence. And if the opinion does indeed have a weak factual/logical basis, then you should state that and critique those specific problems. Saying, "Well, that's just your opinion" in an attempt to shut down your opponent's argument is an example of a "thought-terminating cliché," a tactic whose function is to stop the argument from proceeding further. This should be avoided in the interest of having fair and productive public discourse.