A young Barack Obama supporter stood outside a John McCain rally yesterday. He was yelled at, jeered at, told that he was a no-good bum who lived on his parents’ couch – and in between all of those, managed to have some discussion with a select few supporters of John McCain about the differences between the candidates.
He was also told by a particularly vocal gentleman that a nice thing about the United States is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it’s wrong.
That sort of attitude makes me cringe. An opinion, by its very definition, cannot be wrong. An opinion is something that can be proven neither true nor false. Thus it cannot be right or wrong because those adjectives cannot apply to it, for it is not factual in nature.
Opinions can be a lot of things. They can be meaningful, meaningless, based on fact, based on fiction, well-informed, ignorant, and a whole host of other adjectives. But right or wrong it is not.
Think about this statement: “I think Barack Obama will be a better president than John McCain.” An opinion has been expressed. A proper response would be this: “I think you’re wrong.” A counter-opinion has been expressed.
But often, the response to an opinion such as the one above will simply be, “You’re wrong.” And that is not a true statement and is ultimately meaningless. What is the first person wrong about? Were they lying when they said they think Barack Obama would be a better president? No. The statement, “You’re wrong” is a statement of fact and cannot be the counter to an opinion. Facts can be used to help counter an opinion (i.e. “I believe you’re wrong because …”), but cannot counter an opinion directly.
If it sounds like I’m being nit-picky, it’s because I am. But in order to properly debate, we must be careful in our rhetoric. If you say, “I think John McCain will be the best president ever,” and I respond with, “You’re wrong,” I am implying that you do not in fact THINK John McCain will be the best president ever, rather than implying that John McCain WILL NOT be the best president ever. Get the difference? It’s small, but it’s there.
And that’s my point. An opinion cannot be either right nor wrong because by definition, it is neither true nor false. You can believe that an opinion you disagree with is misguided or ill-informed, but that, too, is an opinion.
Another way to think about it is in terms of laws concerning libel and slander. An opinion cannot be slander or libel because to slander or libel someone, you have to make a statement – either true or false – that damages someone in some way. An opinion does not.
Example: Take the statement, “I’ve seen John steal money from the church collection plate.” No newspaper or other media outlet would let it be published or broadcast (unless taken from a police report or an interview with an eyewitness to the collection plate theft) because even if it’s true, it can be libel or slander (depending on the medium) because it can damage John’s reputation. Even saying, “I think John stole money from the church collection plate” is damaging because it implies something that should be able to be proven true or false.
Now take the statement, “I think a John McCain presidency would be bad for America.” That’s not libel or slander. Why? Because it cannot be proven at all and is thus a true opinion. First, the definition of “bad for America” varies from person to person, so even two people who dislike John McCain are going to have different ideas of why a McCain presidency would be bad for the country. And the ideas of supporters of John McCain about what is truly “bad for America” will differ from those of his detractors. Ultimately, what is “good” or “bad” for America cannot be proven and thus the statement cannot be slander or libel.
Why keep this in mind? Because it helps keep debates from devolving into yelling matches. Debate of all sorts is a good thing. But a debate that devolves into this – “You’re wrong!” “No, you’re wrong!” “Well you’re an idiot!” “No! Your mom’s an idiot!” – is not.
