On the internet I frequently see derivations of the argument "Opinions are equally valid, so people can like whatever they want." Is this really fair? To what extent do people have to substantiate their opinions for them to be considered valid? To what extent does context have an effect on opinion validation?

For example, I frequently see people defend their enjoyment of shows with this argument and I disagree because it encourages further media saturation with what I identify as mediocre content. I can substantiate why I think their show is mediocre. Because I criticize other opinions I'm liable to being labeled as pretentious and undesirable to the community in some capacity. There are some things I don't think people should support even if it appeals to some of their sensibilities.

This may sound like "duh" ideas, but I want to know more about how people respond here. If my phrasing is killing the prospect of better conversation by all means criticize.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want to, but some opinions are supported by facts and are therefore more valid than others.

But opinions on things that can't be supported by facts (subjective things like TV show quality) are all equally valid.

In the name of cultivating good reasons and avoiding bad reasons, I'd say no. Only subjective subjects, such as preference, are safe from the rektening.

Quote from: Prime Kruphix on May 03, 2016, 09:55:40 PM

In the name of cultivating good reasons and avoiding bad reasons, I'd say no. Only subjective subjects, such as preference, are safe from the rektening.

Not even, because it's possible to demonstrate whether someone should have said preference.

If I have a preference for color films, and I think a movie like Raging Bull is bad because it isn't in color--sure, that's my opinion, but it's a garbage opinion, because it completely undermines the artistic vision Scorsese had in making that decision.

But Scorsese's vision doesn't matter there. If you think black and white filming is an inherently bad trait in movie quality, that really can't be disproven by facts.

The value of your opinion increases with your level of education in the argument's subject.

You have a right to say what you want, and I have just as much of a right to call you out on it

Quote from: Verbatim on May 03, 2016, 10:03:44 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on May 03, 2016, 10:02:08 PM

But Scorsese's vision doesn't matter there.

why not

You disagree with me here, but what the artist intended doesn't mean anything. What matters is how the individual interprets the final product. The Beatles wrote Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds as a tribute to LSD, but others have found deeper personal meanings in it, far beyond the original intention. And those are just as valid as the artist's interpretation of their song.

I'm not arguing validity here. I'm arguing lucidity, or quality. Whether it's a coherent, sensible, agreeable, or substantiated thought.

Clearly, not all opinions meet these criteria--even the super subjective ones.

Well, that's another whole argument. If I say I like Breaking Bad because there's drugs and guns, my opinion is just as valid as someone who likes Breaking Bad because of the foreshadowing and dynamic characters. But one opinion is certainly more thought out and lucid than the other.

Exactly. So, I would say that that person has a "better" opinion than you. I'd be more willing to have an intelligent discussion of that show with them rather than I would with you, because I would get more out of it.

That's not to say that liking a show about drugs because you're a druggie is "wrong" or "invalid." It's just kinda shitty.

Unfortunately, yes. This is why Democrats exist.

Posting this here because my sense of timing my edit didn't really work

In this case, seeing as the difference in non-factual and factual evidence-based claims can be summarized by ignorance, some seemingly subjective content can, through further inquiry, be identified more objectively. So is the boundary between subjectivity and objectivity merely someone's perception and feeling, or is it more complicated?

People have the right to express an opinion
The opinion itself is fair game for anyone to take apart tho
Which is nice because you get to learn and develop your rhetoric

Posting this here because my sense of timing my edit didn't really work

In this case, seeing as the difference in non-factual and factual evidence-based claims can be summarized by ignorance, some seemingly subjective content can, through further inquiry, be identified more objectively. So is the boundary between subjectivity and objectivity merely someone's perception and feeling, or is it more complicated?

Truth be told there's a mix of the two, but to varying degrees. I can say that I like a show and support it with the fact that it's famous, or I could use the fact that it uses abnormal tropes as support for how good a show is, but although the facts may be objective in most peoples' eyes, the weight of the fact is subjective.


Am I entitled to an opinion? No, I'm not. Why? Because I don't want to like something without knowing why, and I don't want  to like a guilty pleasure. If someone criticizes the stuff I like I want to be able to defend it, and if I agree on some of the points made, I'll accept a compromise of sorts, or maybe I'll realize that the show I liked was in fact bad.

Even popcorn-tier summer blockbusters like the Avengers has a lot to take away from. The writing is spectacular, and it can inspire people--like me--to learn how to write very colorful, vivid, funny, and likable characters in your own stories.

Out of interest (and semi related) but what's your take on the premise of Civil War?

you are entitled to nothing

Shall not be infringed

Quote from: Dietrich Six on May 04, 2016, 08:08:44 AM

Quote from: gats on May 04, 2016, 07:49:25 AM

you are entitled to nothing

Shall not be infringed

Nobody owes you
Nobody owns you
#feeltheJohnson2016

Civil war when?