Entitled to my opinion....so there!

[John Caldwell]

It is difficult to count the times I have been told by someone that they are entitled to their opinion and I am not sure where people get this notion.

In an argument this is a logical fallacy (it exemplifies a red herring fallacy).

Think about it for a moment. An opinion by definition is subjective. It has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty and is useless in and of itself in any argument.

We all have opinions, but we are not necessarily entitled to have them (this is something C.S. Lewis speaks of when confronted that he did not have the right to hold a particular belief...perhaps in Mere Christianity, I can't recall the source).

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

The above is what I actually mean when I use the word "opinion"; something I can defend and substantiate. But maybe I am misusing it.

I actually only use "opinion" if I am not discussing strict analysis of a text, however. With critical analysis, I always use the word "interpretation."

 

[mjrhealth]

We can all have an opinion, but there is only one truth, and God caress Nought about mens opinions

 

[DNB]

It is difficult to count the times I have been told by someone that they are entitled to their opinion and I am not sure where people get this notion.

In an argument this is a logical fallacy (it exemplifies a red herring fallacy).

Think about it for a moment. An opinion by definition is subjective. It has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty and is useless in and of itself in any argument.

We all have opinions, but we are not necessarily entitled to have them (this is something C.S. Lewis speaks of when confronted that he did not have the right to hold a particular belief...perhaps in Mere Christianity, I can't recall the source).

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

Very interesting point, ...and you're right, for I have found that, anecdotally speaking, this type of rebuttal always typically seems to be used to either substantiate or justify an illogical argument, ...thus, as you said, it is a cavil or non-sequitor, - red-herring.

Of course, everyone is allowed to speak whenever they like, as we live in a continent where free-speech is a constitutional right, as much as everyone is allowed to flap their hands in the air, where and whenever they like. But, we ask, to what purpose, or to whose benefit?

So, in one context, all are entitled to their opinion, but on another level, irrationality is not expected or permitted in the context of a logical forum, ...and thus, just having an opinion doesn't always qualify one to engage in certain circles.

 

[101G]

Not for an argument, but somthing to consider

Ephesians 6:19 "And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

Ephesians 6:20 "For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

as an ambassador for christ we have no oponion on his word. we represent the Government of Heaven here on earth. we speak that which is given us. mind you, one can speak by permission, but must be approved by the head of the Government.

and as an ambassador, why accept the Job if you're going to speak your own mind?.

again not for argument, just an observation.

PICJAG.

 

[historyb]

It is difficult to count the times I have been told by someone that they are entitled to their opinion and I am not sure where people get this notion.

In an argument this is a logical fallacy (it exemplifies a red herring fallacy).

Think about it for a moment. An opinion by definition is subjective. It has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty and is useless in and of itself in any argument.

We all have opinions, but we are not necessarily entitled to have them (this is something C.S. Lewis speaks of when confronted that he did not have the right to hold a particular belief...perhaps in Mere Christianity, I can't recall the source).

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

Since a forum is for discussion and is anonymous everyone has an opinion coupled with the freedom of speech everyone will have an opinion. Not everything everyone says is seen as an opinion by said person, one may see something that another says as an opinion while the one who spoke or wrote that sees it as truth. Hence, when people get to arguing they will say "I have a right to my opinion" and in the USA they do because of freedom of speech.

 

[John Caldwell]

Since a forum is for discussion and is anonymous everyone has an opinion coupled with the freedom of speech everyone will have an opinion. Not everything everyone says is seen as an opinion by said person, one may see something that another says as an opinion while the one who spoke or wrote that sees it as truth. Hence, when people get to arguing they will say "I have a right to my opinion" and in the USA they do because of freedom of speech.

I know it is common. But in an argument it is actually a logical fallacy if that opinion has no evidence supporting the conclusion. By nature all opinions are subjective but without evidence it ia a red herring.

This does not mean people do not have a right to say it (people can say all kinds of stuff). But in an argument we have to have evidence as support.

 

[amadeus]

So, in one context, all are entitled to their opinion, but on another level, irrationality is not expected or permitted in the context of a logical forum, ...and thus, just having an opinion doesn't always qualify one to engage in certain circles.

In the context of a circle consisting of me and God and Jesus, my opinion ultimately may not make a difference to anyone else but to those in the circle it certainly would. Someone else's opinion not in that circle with regard to my opinion should matter to whom? Does anyone on the outside qualify to engage those within?

 

[Giuliano]

It is difficult to count the times I have been told by someone that they are entitled to their opinion and I am not sure where people get this notion.

In an argument this is a logical fallacy (it exemplifies a red herring fallacy).

Think about it for a moment. An opinion by definition is subjective. It has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty and is useless in and of itself in any argument.

We all have opinions, but we are not necessarily entitled to have them (this is something C.S. Lewis speaks of when confronted that he did not have the right to hold a particular belief...perhaps in Mere Christianity, I can't recall the source).

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

I think people have the right to be wrong if they want. If someone wants to believe the moon is made of green cheese, he has the right to believe it. If evidence doesn't matter to him, you're wasting your time talking to him about it. Why argue? Just point out the lack of evidence, and then either laugh or move on.

It rather reminds me of this song, although the man's wife seems to talk him out of his story in the end. . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

A person's opinions are an extension of their own thought process, so of course they are entitled to them-- whatever they may be.

Now, if that person wants to convince another person of those opinions, then the ability to explain it and logic things out becomes important.

 

[DNB]

In the context of a circle consisting of me and God and Jesus, my opinion ultimately may not make a difference to anyone else but to those in the circle it certainly would. Someone else's opinion not in that circle with regard to my opinion should matter to whom? Does anyone on the outside qualify to engage those within?

Well, on the contrary, I would be extremely intrigued about any dialogue that God, Jesus and anyone else are engaged in, ...wisdom is wisdom, and we all can learn from it. For we are all witnesses to conversations with Jesus and his disciples, and the Pharisees, and the lame, and the retrobate. Or Job and his friends, Ruth, Boaz and Naomi, Samuel & Saul, David & Jonathan, etc... We are unable to join in the discussion, but we are capable to discuss after the fact in order to learn. But, such dialogue should be reserved to the serious, insightful and devout, for example. People who simply offer an opinion, because by nature they are opinionated, or are unaware of the historical, cultural and soteriological issues at hand, may not be qualified to discuss such matters, and should keep their opinions to themselves. They are not entitled to impose their views simply because they have one. For such frivolity or recklessness can be either misleading or subversive.
Would you care to listen to a KKK member, or white Supremacist offer their views on Christianity? Do you believe that they are qualified?
But, on the other hand, if I were walking by two strangers and overheard them talking about the Bible, in an area that I am familiar with, I would feel that I would be qualified to join in. Provided that my intent is for the benefit of all, and that i qualify my views with relevant Biblical verses.

 

[reformed1689]

It is difficult to count the times I have been told by someone that they are entitled to their opinion and I am not sure where people get this notion.

In an argument this is a logical fallacy (it exemplifies a red herring fallacy).

Think about it for a moment. An opinion by definition is subjective. It has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty and is useless in and of itself in any argument.

We all have opinions, but we are not necessarily entitled to have them (this is something C.S. Lewis speaks of when confronted that he did not have the right to hold a particular belief...perhaps in Mere Christianity, I can't recall the source).

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

I don't know, I think we are all entitled to our opinion, but we are not entitled that our opinion is always correct

 

[John Caldwell]

I don't know, I think we are all entitled to our opinion, but we are not entitled that our opinion is always correct

That's your opinion.

I just notice how many jump on things like straw-man, ad hominem, red herring..... But "right to an opinion" is also a logical fallacy.

The issue is not about having an opinion, but tryi g to use an unsubstantiated opinion in an argument. It's like the "agree to disagree fallacy".

 

[Willie T]

Here are a couple of definitions that seem to show that very few people ever do much more than state their "opinions" when they are convinced they are expressing "factual" beliefs.

A belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing. : advice from someone with special knowledge : advice from an expert. technical : a formal statement by a judge, court, etc., explaining the reasons a decision was made according to laws or rules.

A belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certain facts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: political opinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true.

 

[amadeus]

Well, on the contrary, I would be extremely intrigued about any dialogue that God, Jesus and anyone else are engaged in, ...wisdom is wisdom, and we all can learn from it. For we are all witnesses to conversations with Jesus and his disciples, and the Pharisees, and the lame, and the retrobate. Or Job and his friends, Ruth, Boaz and Naomi, Samuel & Saul, David & Jonathan, etc... We are unable to join in the discussion, but we are capable to discuss after the fact in order to learn.

Yes, and God preserved much of those things in the written scriptures for our benefit. How much good we receive from what is there is dependent upon us:

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6

But, such dialogue should be reserved to the serious, insightful and devout, for example.

And who is to decide who qualifies to be a participant?

People who simply offer an opinion, because by nature they are opinionated, or are unaware of the historical, cultural and soteriological issues at hand, may not be qualified to discuss such matters, and should keep their opinions to themselves.
They are not entitled to impose their views simply because they have one. For such frivolity or recklessness can be either misleading or subversive.

If God were to go along with that I would want to be on His side, however, has any person you have known ever changed, or been changed, from a negative direction to a positive one? Consider the change wrought in Saul/Paul upon meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. Consider also Judah, a ringleader in the sale of his brother Joseph into slavery, who later in his life spoke up offering himself to save his brother Benjamin and his aging father, Jacob.

Again the question to ask is, who is to decide that someone is not entitled to speak. There certainly is a time to speak and a time to remain silent as per Ecclesiastes 3:7, but while God has given us the time and the choice, does He not want us to give our reins back to Him?

Would you care to listen to a KKK member, or white Supremacist offer their views on Christianity? Do you believe that they are qualified?
But, on the other hand, if I were walking by two strangers and overheard them talking about the Bible, in an area that I am familiar with, I would feel that I would be qualified to join in. Provided that my intent is for the benefit of all, and that i qualify my views with relevant Biblical verses.

Far be it from me to render judgement for or against someone else. I cannot decide for them what is right for them... even if I believe that I know. Should not God lead us even in deciding to speak out against those who appear evil to us?

"...Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them..." Luke 9:54-56

 

[DNB]

Yes, and God preserved much of those things in the written scriptures for our benefit. How much good we receive from what is there is dependent upon us:

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6
And who is to decide who qualifies to be a participant?
If God were to go along with that I would want to be on His side, however, has any person you have known ever changed, or been changed, from a negative direction to a positive one? Consider the change wrought in Saul/Paul upon meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus. Consider also Judah, a ringleader in the sale of his brother Joseph into slavery, who later in his life spoke up offering himself to save his brother Benjamin and his aging father, Jacob.
Again the question to ask is, who is to decide that someone is not entitled to speak. There certainly is a time to speak and a time to remain silent as per Ecclesiastes 3:7, but while God has given us the time and the choice, does He not want us to give our reins back to Him?

Far be it from me to render judgement for or against someone else. I cannot decide for them what is right for them... even if I believe that I know. Should not God lead us even in deciding to speak out against those who appear evil to us?

"...Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them..." Luke 9:54-56

Sorry Amadeus, but this is the whole point of the thread, I find people who say '...I'm entitled to my opinion...', do so whenever they've said something ridiculous. But equally, it annoys me a great deal when I hear Christians say '...who am I to judge?' Christians are the salt of the earth, and if they can't tell right from wrong, or wisdom from foolishness, or pretense from integrity, then who can?
My point is, I will always call someone on something they said that is either offensive, foolish or inappropriate. Because, I would like to think that, first of all, I have enough wisdom to tell the difference, and secondly, i have enough integrity to confront and impede the wickedness.
Why be it 'far from you' to do this?

Yes, there is a time to rebuke, and the example you brought up about Paul, exemplifies this (i'm surprised that you used it)? That is, I'm not convinced that Jesus was being tender in this moment.
Likewise when Paul caused Elymas to go blind, Jesus never stopped rebuking his disciples, nor the Pharisees & Sadducees, or the merchants in the temple, etc...
Yes, much good can come from austere words.

Appreciate the OP's context when he said this. Like what I said at the start of this post, under such circumstances, using 'entitled to one's opinion' is just a non-sequitor. Everyone knows that, in such a forum, opinions are welcome and that every one has one. But, don't engage and waste everyone's time with outrageous or unqualified arguments. In such a case, being entitled to an opinion does not justify the effort required in refuting the point.
And yes, a Christian should be able to know when someone is arguing, just for the sake of arguing, it's called wisdom and insight, ...something that the children of this world do not have.

 

[marks]

It is difficult to count the times I have been told by someone that they are entitled to their opinion and I am not sure where people get this notion.

In an argument this is a logical fallacy (it exemplifies a red herring fallacy).

Think about it for a moment. An opinion by definition is subjective. It has attached to it a certain degree of uncertainty and is useless in and of itself in any argument.

We all have opinions, but we are not necessarily entitled to have them (this is something C.S. Lewis speaks of when confronted that he did not have the right to hold a particular belief...perhaps in Mere Christianity, I can't recall the source).

The only opinions to which we have an entitlement are those for which we can reasonably argue with evidence. In any type of argument we are only entitled to that for which we can argue.

Hi John,

Interesting post! I've not read the other posts yet, so maybe this is brought up somewhere . . . just the same . . .

Are we entitled to hold any particular opinion? Whether we can argue for it or not?

What is this entitlement anyway?

Might I say that one is actually only entitled to hold the correct view?

I can present an argument for something, and be completely wrong, and am I still entitled to hold a wrong view?

What does it really mean to be "entitled"? Doesn't that just describe that we feel self-justified?

Much love!

 

[marks]

But, don't engage and waste everyone's time with outrageous or unqualified arguments. In such a case, being entitled to an opinion does not justify the effort required in refuting the point.

Just so!

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi John,

Interesting post! I've not read the other posts yet, so maybe this is brought up somewhere . . . just the same . . .

Are we entitled to hold any particular opinion? Whether we can argue for it or not?

What is this entitlement anyway?

Might I say that one is actually only entitled to hold the correct view?

I can present an argument for something, and be completely wrong, and am I still entitled to hold a wrong view?

What does it really mean to be "entitled"? Doesn't that just describe that we feel self-justified?

Much love!

I keep thinking of C. S. Lewis. His works, I suppose, have had an impact on how I think.

I think we can hold an opinion or belief only Insofar as we can defend that view.

 

[Enoch111]

I think we can hold an opinion or belief only Insofar as we can defend that view.

And what if the defense is totally bogus, but you still believe you are defending it adequately? All those who hold to false beliefs assume that they are defending them, when in fact they are simply repeating the *mantras* taught by their religious groups.