How do you reply to "That's just your opinion"?

[Magical Wand]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal or moral obligation/duty to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true, regardless of how strong your evidence is.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

 

[SalixIncendium]

I allow them their opinion. I'm usually wrong, so why belabor the point?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

They have the right to disagree. However, in a public debate, the winner of a debate is decided typically by the crowd, and not by the opponent, so there's reassurance there.

 

[Stevicus]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal obligation to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true -- independently of the evidence you might provide.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

I don't mind if someone says that to me. At least it's better than those who might just make a snarky one-liner or tell me flat out that I'm wrong without any explanation or elaboration as to where and how I might be wrong.

But if they're just saying they disagree, that's cool. They don't have to say why.

 

[danieldemol]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal obligation to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true -- independently of the evidence you might provide.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

My reply would be along the lines of, "right back at you".

They are entitled to an opinion without reason, but theirs is just as much of an opinion as the person they are saying it to.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal obligation to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true -- independently of the evidence you might provide.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

I generally allow for the fact that they're fully entitled to be wrong about whatever they choose to be. My job isn't to convince them of something. It's to challenge their perspective or provide them additional information. If I'm lucky, they'll do the same for me. Then I can either dig my heels in, or develop my thoughts based on new perspectives and information.

If their opinion...or mine...has a hard material impact on me, my family, or others, then I am likely to be a little less philosophical about the whole thing. I found some of the marriage equality arguments in Australia frustrating in the extreme, because if it's all JUST opinion, people should **** off out of the way of others, and stop trying to force particular lifestyles or moral judgements on them.

So...yeah...hypocrisy gets to me.

 

[Stevicus]

They have the right to disagree. However, in a public debate, the winner of a debate is decided typically by the crowd, and not by the opponent, so there's reassurance there.

I thought that winners of debates were decided by a panel of judges, at least in terms of actual debate teams and competitions. I forget how they keep score, although I think it's more a matter of grading the quality of delivery, structure, preparation of arguments, not so much a matter of whether one agrees or disagrees. It's evaluated more on form than content.

In less formal debates, such as the kind here on RF or other internet forums, it's hard to know where "the crowd" really stands.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal obligation to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true -- independently of the evidence you might provide.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

Psychologists have observed and demonstrated particular kinds of mental blindness. One of the early examples are people that can't perceive things on one side of them. This condition is called "Homonymous hemianopsia." They aren't physically blind on one side, but their mind simply doesn't perceive things on one side. This is only the beginning of mental blindness-es. We can be blind in many ways. We can try to understand or even believe that we understand and yet not understand. We can believe that we hear but not hear.

Very often people are not able to listen to what other people mean. Very often certain things can only be heard at certain times in life.

Then again there are mental blindnesses. 'Anosognosia' is a lack of ability to perceive the realities of one’s own condition. It’s a person’s inability to accept that they have a condition that matches up with their symptoms or a formal diagnosis. (from this LINK)

People are not logical units, and we can't always know that what we have heard is what was said nor that what we are saying is reasonable. Sometimes its best just to let things go, and that is what people do sometimes.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I thought that winners of debates were decided by a panel of judges, at least in terms of actual debate teams and competitions. I forget how they keep score, although I think it's more a matter of grading the quality of delivery, structure, preparation of arguments, not so much a matter of whether one agrees or disagrees. It's evaluated more on form than content.

Probably so. But it's a little too difficult to assign judges to an internet forum, in my opinion. People have busy lives, after all.

In less formal debates, such as the kind here on RF or other internet forums, it's hard to know where "the crowd" really stands.

It's a pretty simple philosophy - if you wish to convince someone of a subject in a public debate, post not just for them, but for the crowd to read and consider, too.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

...on RF or other internet forums, it's hard to know where "the crowd" really stands.

Just ask me.

 

[Kooky]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, even when it's the wrong one.

 

[Vinayaka]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal obligation to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true -- independently of the evidence you might provide.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

I have no issue with opinions, but I do when said opinions are presented as fact.

 

[Meow Mix]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun. However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond, "Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

It is not that the person doesn't want to explain what is the reason why they disagree -- given that they don't have any legal obligation to do so. Rather, the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all; it is "just" your opinion; a little story which you believe to be true, but is not necessarily true -- independently of the evidence you might provide.

Anyway, no doubt you've already discussed with this kind of people before. So, what's your reply to the claim, "That's just your opinion"? ㅤ:）

This is just ignoratio elenchi laid bare. There's not much that can be done. If a person doesn't understand the threat that a justification for a counter-argument holds, that's as much of an impasse as there's likely to be.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

My reply:

“you are correct, it’s just my opinion, and it’s probably wrong”

 

[stvdv]

the idea is that they don't need to have any reason to disagree (or so they think). It is like your argument has no value at all;

Of course they have the perfect reason to reply to you with "it's just your opinion"

IMO a better question would be "why do you make them reply to you that way?"

 

[stvdv]

Having civil discussions is a fruitful way to check if your beliefs stand up to scrutiny and it is fun.

However, sometimes, when challenged with a sufficiently strong argument, some people simply respond,

"Well, that's just your opinion and I respect it, but I disagree." And that's the end of the story.

You made a mistake
They point it out
That's all
IMO
Thank them
For showing your mistake
Never make the same mistake again

 

[SigurdReginson]

Meh, the forum serves 2 purposes, IMO. It's a useful resource for people's thoughts and perspectives to glean wisdom from, and/or it's a form of entertainment. When a conversation stops yielding those results, it's just best to move onto other threads.

 

[Stevicus]

Probably so. But it's a little too difficult to assign judges to an internet forum, in my opinion. People have busy lives, after all.



It's a pretty simple philosophy - if you wish to convince someone of a subject in a public debate, post not just for them, but for the crowd to read and consider, too.

Yeah, although that can often depend on the crowd, too.

Here on RF, the crowd...well, it's not really a "crowd," per se. I don't know what one would call it. Most people here seem pretty independent minded who think for themselves, but relatively open and willing to consider other points of view. But I don't think they'd make a very good crowd. If all the posters at RF met at some convention hall...well, I shudder to think of what might happen. It would not be a good crowd.

 

[F1fan]

Irony.

 

[F1fan]

In my experience, if a person says "That's just your opinion" it suggests you just won the debate. It's essentially a concession that your opponent has no rebuttal to your previous statement. To say "just your opinion" is a way to devalue what they saw as devastating to their position.

Your blade is between their ribs, turn it.