Are you entitled to your opinion?

[McCulloch]

you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Should holding an incorrect opinion be a right? What obligation does this alleged right put on those who hold other opinions?

[Evales]

All opinions are just that. Opinions. They are neither right nor wrong.

The main thing I am taught when analysing written text is that no opinion is greater than another. It is this kind of thinking that allows a person to admire Hitlers speeches despite what he was saying.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

All opinions are just that. Opinions. They are neither right nor wrong.

Not necessarily. It can be my opinion that 1 + 1 = 3, but that is quite obviously wrong. If the opinion is on something that has some absolute value, then opinions can be right or wrong.

[Goat]

you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Should holding an incorrect opinion be a right? What obligation does this alleged right put on those who hold other opinions?

"If I wanted your opinion, I would give it to you"

[Evales]

All opinions are just that. Opinions. They are neither right nor wrong.

Not necessarily. It can be my opinion that 1 + 1 = 3, but that is quite obviously wrong. If the opinion is on something that has some absolute value, then opinions can be right or wrong.

True, however if we look at the definition of opinion:
"a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are ...
a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
Princeton

[regularrand]

Does the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence give anyone the right to an opinion?

rr

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

All opinions are just that. Opinions. They are neither right nor wrong.

Not necessarily. It can be my opinion that 1 + 1 = 3, but that is quite obviously wrong. If the opinion is on something that has some absolute value, then opinions can be right or wrong.

True, however if we look at the definition of opinion:
"a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are ...
a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
Princeton

Looks like I was using the wrong definition. Under this definition, an opinion cannot be wrong.

[McCulloch]

Does the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence give anyone the right to an opinion?

rr

No, they do not. The rights of freedom of speech and assembly gives one the right to express his opinion, but the right to hold an opinion is assumed, since such a right cannot be either granted or taken away.

[regularrand]

Does the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence give anyone the right to an opinion?

rr

No, they do not. The rights of freedom of speech and assembly gives one the right to express his opinion, but the right to hold an opinion is assumed, since such a right cannot be either granted or taken away.

So the US government does not defend your right to have your own opinions.
We can see that because the government persecuted thousands of people who held the opinion that the philosophy of Communism had some merit.

So the US government practices thought control on some level. Much like Religion does.

rr

[I AM ALL I AM]

you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Should holding an incorrect opinion be a right? What obligation does this alleged right put on those who hold other opinions?

A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.
-First Law of Mentat, Dune, Frank Herbert.

G'day McCulloch.

Coming from an opinionated perspective stops the flow of discussion and therefore the understanding of what is being discussed.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.
-The Open-Ended Proof from, The Panoplia Prophetica, God Emperor Dune, Frank Herbert.

An "opinion" is merely another way of someone saying, "This is what I believe and you cannot change my belief.", which doesn't offer any recourse to the mutual understanding of the belief that a discussion could elicit. The statement that you have quoted then becomes an ending, a stopping of the "flow of the process" of the discussion.

I have found that such a statement is usually given by someone that has been attempting to change your belief and realised that their belief is an "assumption full of holes" and delivers this statement as a 'last resort' or 'get out of jail free' card. It is kin to the statement, "We'll have to agree to disagree."

[McCulloch]

you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Should holding an incorrect opinion be a right? What obligation does this alleged right put on those who hold other opinions?

A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.
-First Law of Mentat, Dune, Frank Herbert.

G'day McCulloch.

You do realize that [size=18][color=blue][b] is the online equivalent of shouting. Please tone it down, we can all read your posts in a reasonably normal font. You do realize that the Dune series of books are fiction, right?

An "opinion" is merely another way of someone saying, "This is what I believe and you cannot change my belief.", which doesn't offer any recourse to the mutual understanding of the belief that a discussion could elicit. The statement that you have quoted then becomes an ending, a stopping of the "flow of the process" of the discussion.

I have found that such a statement is usually given by someone that has been attempting to change your belief and realised that their belief is an "assumption full of holes" and delivers this statement as a 'last resort' or 'get out of jail free' card. It is kin to the statement, "We'll have to agree to disagree."

Exactly. While everyone holds whatever opinions that they may hold, those opinions confer no obligation on me to respect them, to not try to change them, or even to examine them carefully.