Originally Posted by Astor Kaine
Forgive me if I misunderstood, but isn't that basically saying 'i'm right, and if you disagree, you're wrong?'
I'm saying that I wouldn't submit an opinion if I didn't know the subject very well. If the issue were in regards to biology, (A subject I don't have any aptitude for) I wouldn't place much faith in what I know.
It's basically 'If you disagree, I'd like you to prove it before submitting it as proof.'
I assume everyone else would form their opinions based on their experiences, but if they submit something that I don't find convincing, I'm going to assume they're wrong. Likewise if I don't make a convincing argument, I assume they're going to believe I'm wrong.
What actually happens though is that one who can punch holes in an argument will say their own statement must therefore be right. I would respect another person submitting evidence, but not when they proclaim their evidence counters my statement without convincing me.
When I start a thread, I aim to present evidence and let readers decide for themselves. What usually happens is that the other side submits something and then says that my sources are incorrect. I don't want to say the opposite side of an argument is incorrect, but I feel I have to when they undermine my side.
I am guilty of doing this as well, so this is hypocritical of me to complain. I would like to get the opposite side's perspective on the matter, but when it seeks more to undermine my evidence... I won't respect an opinion more if it says 'Could it also be this?' rather than 'I'm right/You're wrong'