Viva Forever

Today’s discussion: opinions. This is mostly fuelled by a recent entry by someone who had a rather strong opinion about, well, opinions. I not going to directly quote from what was said because the entry was taken down, and I assume that’s because the author didn’t want the public to read it. While my comment on said entry consequently is no longer accessible either, it certainly got me thinking about the whole topic. Here be my thoughts!

I have seen on more than one occasion, people have expressed the belief that opinions cannot be right or wrong, and as some have said, there are only favourable/unfavourable opinions. This is mostly based on the idea that because opinions are beliefs and judgements of something uncertain (paraphrased from dictionary.com’s definition), then opinions cannot be right or wrong. Another way to look at it is that many believe that opinions are purely subjective, therefore they are immune to judgement about their correctness. However, this is an incomplete and superficial conclusion as to what opinions are. There are subjective opinions and there are opinions that are based on objective premises.

Subjective Opinions
Subjective opinions usually refer to one’s own cognitions. For example consider the statement,

“I like fish”.

This cannot be “wrong” because the truth of it comes from yourself, i.e. it would be nonsensical for someone to retort with, “no, you DON’T like fish” because they are not you, and hence not the source of the claim. Other examples could be like, “I feel hungry” or “I hate the rain”. These statements can only be false when the person speaking is lying about the internal state they’re experiencing.

Objective Opinions
Of relevance, objective opinions distinctly have two elements. There is the,
1) The “I believe…” or “I think…” part (which may be expressed or implied), and
2) The actual claim.

For example,

“I think Asperger Syndrome is a fake condition”

This is an opinion about some aspect of the world, and I argue that it can be said to be right or wrong. However, I must stress that the rightness or wrongness has NOTHING to do with that first aspect, the “I think” part. To say the opinion is wrong is not to say “I don’t think that you actually think Asperger’s is a fake condition”, or that it’s not true that you hold that opinion. Saying an opinion is wrong is not to say that you’re not entitled to voice the opinion or that you don’t hold the opinion. Rightness or wrongness refers to the actual claim you’re making.

Of course there are some topics out there that are debatable and are not settled facts. I have heard people opine that Asperger’s is not real, however, just because it’s their opinion, it doesn’t mean such opinions exist in an untouchable void. The existence of Asperger’s is supported by a large body of empirical research, and to contradict the conclusions of such research with no legitimate evidence is to make a claim that is (for all intents and purposes) incorrect, or “wrong”. Such a claim does not stop being incorrect by virtue of being someone’s expressed opinion. It is different when you have an opinion about the world that is backed up with reason or evidence. Then you have an argument, and when confronted with a different view, then perhaps discourse on the subject matter can ensue.

It surprises me whenever people express their opinions about something, and when someone asks them why or presents alternative explanations or some such, the first person gets all huffy and says something along the lines of “well that’s my opinion!”. Okay, so what? If you’re making claims about the world, and if you don’t have a good enough reason to back it up compared to a different claim, then why are you even defending it? Why are people so defensive and get so personal when their objective opinions are demonstrably based on something that is not correct? No one is trying to remove one’s right to an opinion just because they’re based on a less correct premise. You have the right to be wrong, but everyone else retains the right to tell you so.

It’s not always possible to get a “right” opinion when compared to its alternative, because the foundation of the opinions might be different. A Christian who might say “premarital sex is immoral” has a valid opinion, because it follows logically from their belief that there is a God who mandates that premarital sex is immoral. Someone who doesn’t believe in a God in the first place would also come to an equally valid opinion that premarital sex is not immoral. There’s no right and wrong to these two opinions because they work on different premises. However, at least through discussion people can work out what different premises they’re working with, if they have established that both opinions make sense.

Hence, opinions about the world are not immune to objective scrutiny. They can be engaged with like any argument or assertion or belief, and can be deemed good, bad, right or wrong. It has nothing to do with the right to have opinions, or the people making them.

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I found Alex’s entry on education to be particularly enlightening. For another perspective on things, Amanda has her view on the matter. Food for thought!

P.P.S. I just found that Sarai has coincidentally written about opinions too. Seems like we’re on the same wavelength, though she said it with fewer words. ^^;

P.P.P.S. I’m aware that my link list isn’t working (damn plugin) on my blog, and only the script that rotates my dailies on the front page works. I’m trying to get the list back up ASAP.

Horrific Article of the Week: Training Your Girlfriend

The gist of the article is that this incredibly bitter “Relationship Correspondent” took it upon himself to advise his readers about what to do about girlfriends that act like a “bitch”. Which is to treat them exactly as if they’re dogs until they learn to be “obedient”. The whole thing is so demeaning, I can’t even pick out particular choice quotes. The justification seems to be that women do this to men anyway, hence men should do it to women first.

Isn’t the better solution be that NO ONE does this to ANYONE? As someone pointed out in the comments of the article, the irony is that the “perfect” outcome would be a girlfriend who is dependent on the boyfriend, even though that’s the type of thing that the writer complains of when women do it to men. Isn’t it then obvious that, generally speaking, NO ONE wants to be on anyone’s “leash” in a relationship?

I cringe inside when I hear of people boasting that they have their significant other “whipped” (though the double standard seems to be that it’s okay that the boyfriend is whipped yet it’s more unacceptable when the girlfriend is instead). To me, since I don’t like the idea of being controlled, then I’m going to assume that other people don’t either, unless they tell me otherwise. Of course, if one party expressly tells you that they’re okay with you handling most decision making processes etc, then that’s a different matter because they chose this course of action rather than being manipulated into it. However, I find it troubling how some people are so preoccupied about who’s “wearing the pants in the relationship” when the answer could well be “both people”.

But yeah. WTF is with that article?

Why would a pub, with no dance floor, serving the usual beers and cocktails, with lots of seating and tables designed for friends/acquaintances to get together and chat while drinking, BLAST TECHNO MUSIC THAT IS SO LOUD THAT IT MAKES THE TABLES LITERALLY VIBRATE?

Lack of posting due to it being exam season and like Chantelle, my last exam ends 21st November. One down, another three to go!

Anyway, my mum today was telling me about a family friend of ours, a chick about two or three years older than me, whose parents are close friends with my parents. I don’t remember her English name, let’s call her “C”. From the very beginning, when I first visited her house at the wee age of about six, I came to the lasting conclusion that C was a horrible bitch, mainly because she expressly refused to let me play with any of her toys. Anyway, being the older one, she started University about two years before I did, in some finance degree. Over the years, we’ve been hearing from her parents that she had academic trouble at Uni, but recently, we were told that she had finally graduated from her three-year degree in her fifth year.

Big twist time! Her mum told my dad a few days ago that C had been lying all along! She in fact stopped attending University after her third year (after what I guess were a series of very bad marks) and simply lied to her parents all this time about going to university, INCLUDING the bit about her graduating. I have no idea why one would make such a lie, I mean, sooner or later, you’re going to be quizzed about the existence of your degree. Her parents are absolutely devastated at the news and promptly have been going around telling everyone about how they are so ashamed and disappointed by the whole thing.

Now, as much as I dislike C, I really feel bad for her. I hate how some parents are so fucking sensitive about their children bring shame on them, and yet this “shame” they are so paranoid about simply wouldn’t exist if you didn’t go around complaining to people about it. C’s parents are quite traditionally Chinese in their absolute insistence on getting a University degree, and no doubt such pressure contributes to C’s decision to lie. C has had a continuous part-time job in the retail industry, can probably support herself financially (though still lives at home) and apparently she enjoys working and yet that’s probably not good enough for her parents.

Anyway, now that the cat’s out of the bag, C’s said she’ll be trying to get back into University to get some sort of tourism degree, though I don’t know how much THAT is influenced by her parents. It must suck so much balls to be in her position right now regarding her parents. :(

I’ve grumbled (incessantly) in the past, of how silly, irrational and down-right contradictory some laws are. However this evening I found a copy of the judgement to Baby v Maryland, a rape case appeal from Maryland, USA, which made me metaphorically throw up a bit in my mouth. The whole thing is accessible here, but since it’s 51 pages, I’ll point out the main bits. Note that this case was decided in 2006. That’s last year.

The following is the judge deciding when withdrawing consent before, during and after sexual intercourse is considered rape. He cites the case of Battle v State first, specifically where the judge in that case had said (on page 26):

“The authorities are unanimous in the view that consent subsequent to the act of intercourse will not prevent its being rape.”

Okay fair enough. If two people have had consensual sex, it’s simply illogical to say you withdraw consent to something that has already happened. But from there, the judge in that case made the logic-defying leap to conclude that (on page 29):

“On the other hand, ordinarily if she consents prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape.”

WHAT THE FUCK. The judge is basically saying, “because we’ve decided there’s no rape if you consented after sex ended, then it’s also not rape if you consented once sex has started”. The sheer misunderstanding of how sex and people work is mind-boggling. Sex is not a rollercoaster; it’s not like once you get on you have no option to get off (no pun intended!). If a party doesn’t want to keep going once it’s started, then the act ought to stop. If it doesn’t, then it should be considered rape. Because these cases deal with women who get raped, there appears to be this frightening assumption of some kind that men who have sex with women simply CAN’T stop, or more disturbingly, SHOULDN’T have to stop, having sex once it’s started.

But okay, the Battle v State case WAS decided in the 1980s and well MAYBE one can argue that back then things were simply more conservative and the idea that women aren’t objects isn’t as wide spread as it is today. But for some reason Baby v Maryland, the 2006 case, decides to follow Battle v State. After quoting Battle v State (above), this 2006 case goes on to say (on page 31-32):

The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial “de-flowering” of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensation, in legal contemplation, the injured party - the father or husband… But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.

*heaves*

*head explodes*

I… just… wow. Ladies and gentlemen, let me state this again; the above quote came from a judgement in 2006. It’s asserting that just because “ancient laws” (the footnotes, BTW, say that the “ancient laws” they refer to are ancient Assyrian laws) dictate that:

• Women are property;
• Rape of a woman is an “insult” to her father/husband; and
• Rape is only “rape” when it’s the act of “de-flowering” a woman; anything after that is less consequential because it holds less value to men;

this should apply to the women in Maryland, USA, in the 21st century. I’ll let you mull over that.

The case actually then goes on to list a bunch of cases that goes against such sentiment and that such reasonings are “archaic and unrealistic” (page 34) and that there are “only three decisions which appear to hold that prior consent vitiates post penetration withdrawal of consent” with one of the cases being Battle v State (page 35). Nonetheless, the judge in Baby v Maryland decides to apply Battle anyway, with the incredibly feeble justification that:

“It is currently a statement of Maryland law, that has neither been overruled nor commented upon negatively.”

Now I know that following precedent is a big thing in law, i.e. that cases need to follow previous case law that has been decided by a higher court. But this is just ridiculous. The fact that the judge in Baby v Maryland went so far as to cite Assyrian law just to justify why continuing with sexual intercourse after the other party has withdrawn consent is NOT rape is so revoltingly sexist, it’s terrifying and makes me so angry. This above decision is on appeal (link curtesy of Feministing) to the highest court in Maryland, and fingers crossed that the previous judgement would be overturned.