[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Are ALL viewpoints equaly valid? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/24/2005 6:49:19 AM EDT
|
Are all view points equally valid? Can you and I be discussing a topic in which we disagree, where one of our arguments is more right than the other? Or do you believe that both sides of an argument should always be considered equally valid? Or is there still a right and wrong? SGatr15 |
2 plus 2 never equals five. Blue is not the same thing as green. Fire burns whether anyone acknowledges it or not. There IS such a thing as absolute truth. Some issues are black and white. Some are not. But most of the time what is right is pretty obvious. |
No
Yes, if you are of an opinion that has no factual basis and is uneducated and based on emotion only.
No
Yes, still a right and wrong. |
Yes, lets look at wars. In a war you have to sides fighting. Can one country be considered to be fighting for what is right and a nobal cause, while the other is wrong and must be defeated? Or..are both sides right and we just need to understand the other side more? Sgatr15 |
The Germans and Japanese saw themselves as being in the right, however, in the big picture, they were not right. They were wrong, brutal, and terrible. It took a force of good, on the RIGHT side, to defeat that. |
I agree, even thought the enemy THINKS they have a legitamite complaint doesn't mean they are right. Sgat1r5 |
The one that can spell is right.  livefereordeiNH |
You're gonna hate me!  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_logic |
|
Depends on the topic. Everyone's talking about facts being facts, but, there is not always "factual" evidence. Say, there is a picture of a red flower vase on the wall. One person may see it as complete genius. One person may see it as garbage. Both of thier viewpoints are valid, becasue, there wimply aren't any facts in evidence. Someone could say: "I like AKs becasue of the way they look." Or, "I don't like AKs becasue of how they look." There aren't any facts presented by either side. Even with facts in evidence, like an ecenomic indicator: Econemist 1 says it's pointing at a recession Econemist 2 says it's pointing at growth. Just like most things. Situationally dependant. |
That is the easiest to justify from a historical perspective. What about Carthage vs Rome? or the American Indian vs the United States Army? You're right that very few people will fight for a cause they see as evil, so they tend to view themselves as the good guys. In most cases, neither side is pure as the driven snow. Instead of trying to figure out who is right, its often more constructive to pick who is less wrong. |
Okay, I can agree with that. But let's use this example. A homeless guy is VERY hungry and needs to eat, so he tries to rob you. You defend yourself. Who is right, who is wrong? Sgat1r5 |
In the value system that we are taught, you are right to defend yourself. He is wrong to try to rob you. ETA....I guess he would be in the right if he tried to eat you instead of robbing you.  |
|
There is absolute truth. You'll see liberal arguements that are clearly based on their belief that everything is relative. Here's a simiple example. 2+2=4. Some will argue that 2+2 is really 10 so we should compromise and agree that 2+2=6. There are a couple of problems with this. First, it's clearly wrong (not accurate). Second, it encourages the person to make a wild clam in hopes of even different outcome. For instance, if you don't stand up to the first wild claim they'll claim that 2+2=103,203. Therefore we should compromise that 2+2=50,000. Now isn't that great? No. It's still wrong. R. |
Depends whats being discussed. Some issues come down to being nothing more than a matter of opinion.Religion, for instance. Totally nothing more than faith-based, with no way to prove for or against a particular viewpoint. |
The fact that he is homeless and VERY hungry does not give him a claim on the product of my effort. It's wrong when he tries to rob me directly but at least I can defend myself in this case. It's much worse when so called "moral" people use the power of the government to force me to give him money via the tax-welfare system -- self defense is MUCH more difficult in this situation. - CD |
There is no right or wrong. There is only what is and what is not. There is legal and illegal. Right or wrong can be individual or cultural. Serial killers believe that certain people deserve to die for their pleasure is right. That is a valid view point because its what made them do or not do something. Its right to him and wrong to others. What does VALID mean there? I say all view points are valid because that is what controls people to do or not do something. |
|
Exactly. |
Are you a Moral Relativist? |
......I need to go lie down now. my head hurts. 
|
EGGS-ACT-LY!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Everything is black and white....the debated grey areas are created when we are afraid of the answer(s), or when we have asked a stupid question. This is different than questions regarding moderation, where either one extreme or the other is obviously wrong. One of our biggest faults is thinking that everyone is as reasonable as we are. No, not everyone's opinion is of equal weight or validity. But we all have our rights to them, whatever they are. |
Sorry, but there are absolutes. Funny thing, moral relativists are the first to cry "unfair" when it involves them personally. |
Now you've given a clear example. The thief is wrong. The answer? Leviticus 19:11 Ye shall not steal... See? There are issues that are right or wrong. No gray areas at all. "Ye shall not steal". Simple as that.  |
Oh it can apply to everyone. It's a universal statement of truth, no matter who says it. 
|