>

I suppose I don't see a good rebuttal to what's been most likely been argued here. 
If I can make a cogent, necessary and sufficient argument that's gas tight, then any fallacious attempts against it aren't worth wasting time on it. In another way of looking at it, it isn't necessary to know that once it was believed that a sun god rode across the sky to accept that the sun is a star in our galaxy. A belief is not dependent on other beliefs for it to be true. It either is or isn't.
/u/mxlp (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I like this topic. I generally agree with what you are saying and for reasons you mention plus it's helped me discover the errors of my own thinking. There are even books about conversation skills that advise listening to the other person and repeating what you think you've heard so the other person can let you know if you have a correct understanding.
My only arguments:
- Time. There are situations when someone must act quickly and delaying action with further discussion could be costly or catastrophic. In those situations a person has to go with the information they have and deal with the consequences. The hope, of course, is that the person isn't too far off in their judgement. A good example of this is one person deciding whether to use lethal force on another person.
- For some people, certain opinions are part of their identity. Exposing these opinions to scrutiny is like exposing their identity to scrutiny. In this situation, the person may view a rational discussion of the closely-held opinion as, "academic" or "theoretical," or even as a personal attack. I think a person in this situation has to already be open to change before they can entertain others' arguments. >

Agreed that in areas of self-preservation you need to go with your gut. In much the same way that if you feel that you should cross the street at night when coming up to a group of young people who happen to be black, it might be best to re-assess your possible prejudices in the safety of your home than discover that your gut was right and there were other elements of their behaviour that your subconsciously picked up on.
The identity one is a huge point, and that's been the biggest pushback I've had in real life, where people who identify as non-hetro feel personally attacked at the very idea of having to justify their sexual orientation.
This is the biggest area that I could maybe be moved on and I'm still trying to work through it, especially trying to think of counter examples where we would expect people to challenge their identity.
Definitely got me thinking so will come back later if I change my mind on this. >

Identity is a tricky one. I think many people do end up questioning their identity and trying to justify it. It is often seen when people change religions or the like. So it does happen, and it can be done. That said, I also see the issue with "needing to justify" any part of your identity. I tend to trend deontological on this one (If I'm remembering this correctly) - is it something that anyone would have to potentially justify? Like asking you to justify your gender doesn't make much sense for the normative, so it doesn't make much sense for the alternative. Other things may be in poor taste, but don't seem inherently as offensive to me - i.e. tatoos or obvious hair die. Especially if everyone is willing to accept a very superficial answer like "I felt like blue hair yesterday, so I died my hair". 
I think there are certainly some things you could strongly ask for in identity justification also - maybe choosing to be a cop, or join the military. Or why you are an investment banker. 
And then there's the to my mind unjustifiable - KKK member, serial murderer, etc. But maybe making someone actually think about why they're a member of a certain group could be useful. >

Sometimes the full "position" of people on one side is very scattered.
I think this is common for people holding contrarian views.  If you ask a dozen flat earthers for information about antartica and the artic circle, you'll get varying answers.  Often, there isn't a consensus among the contrarians of their alternative theory, just agreement that the more common opinion is wrong.
In these situations, trying to debunk each of the contrarians' views is playing whack-a-mole.  Debunk one idea, and they'll just drop it and pick up another they've heard.  you can't hit them all.
the truth often gets views to converge because the proof is there for experts demonstrate.  False ideas sometimes don't.  So, understanding the multitude of false ideas to an extent that you could represent them might be a lot harder than just understanding the strong evidence behind the truth. >

Actually, you can hit them all, of course you can. But they don't give a shit. These people don't care about reason. You may as well try and convince a creationist that evolution is a thing. You're wasting your time. >

If your only requirement is being able to briefly explain what the opposing viewpoint is, are you really arguing that we need to understand the opposing view, or just that we need to be aware of it? Like for the homophobia example, is it enough for me to know that someone is homophobic because of their religion? Would it be enough to say "some people believe the Earth is flat because all the evidence of a round earth are lies made up by the government"? 
And for that matter, what if I'm not aware of the opposing view? Say I have a strong belief that other humans have minds, and I've never come across anyone saying they didn't believe that. Is that unreasonable, in your view? Do I need to research every belief I hold to see whether anyone disagrees before it's acceptable for me to have a strong opinion? >

On your first question, I think that would be an improvement on the current situation, so as there's admittedly ambiguity here I would err on the side of saying yes, that's sufficient. That being said ideally people would have a slightly more detailed understanding e.g. "you're against gay people because of three key passages in the old testament".
On the second point, there's two elements. I think you should question everything, but I think it's understandable to not realise you've made certain assumptions that you've never been given reason to doubt or question. And secondly I think if you are aware that there *could* be an opposing view, in the days of the internet I think you should at the least do a cursory google or equivalent. >

This grants a significant amount of power - as well as pointless time - to those who have opposing views that have no merit.
E.G. I do not need to be able to explain in a way that would be satisfactory to flat-earthers the framework and idea of their theory.  In an argument about the shape of the earth there position is so thoroughly untenable that wasting time gain sufficient knowledge to satisfy your standard would be an absurd engagement. >

Other people have made this argument. I think you're actually appealing to a more foundational opinion about the trustworthiness of the scientific community (among other things) that makes any conspiracy theory of that scale is untenable. You therefore don't need to address the specifics of the theory.
Or if you haven't done that, then I would argue that you have actually unreasonably dismissed the flat earth theory. >

So...again, you knock someone off of having a reasonably strong idea simply by postulating an alternative.  
(And...your claim as I read it is that current knowledge can't be held in "strong opinion" when counter-knowledge is not deeply understood.  Maybe I'm misreading.) >

I explicitly said that you don't need a deep understanding. And also I feel like my previous reply explains this point. If I have an established opinion that "conspiracies can't be sustained at a large scale for a long time" and I evaluate the counter arguments and settle on my opinion, then it doesn't matter what flavours of conspiracy a flat earther presents, I already have a more generalised position that will always apply so I don't need to assess their detail to have a strong opinion on it. >

Whatever.  Doesn't matter - same problem.  You're granting power to knock you off your knowledge simply by postulating an alternative.  Why would we move from having a strong opinion to not having one based on the simple fact of someone proposing an alternative?  If information is useful, pragmatic, achieves desired results I can and should absolutely continue to act upon my knowledge even if someone poses an alternative idea.  
In an area where "truth" with a capital T is needed it might be worth my time to assess all alternatives, but for most things the noise of alternatives would be absurd to pursue.
I think you believe this sounds like being open to alternatives and a continued pursuit of truth.  That's great, and there is a place for it.  However, if "strong opinion" means something akin to "going to act upon" then the need to act outweighs the probality of improvement in outcome through following all alternatives to the point of sufficient knowledge (whatever your bar is).  You would spend literally all your time on almost a single topic, in a life where you need actionable information innumerable times a day/week/year. >

I don't think you're understanding my point, but I have given somebody a delta for this as it is a bit different than my original position.
I'm saying that if you can form a generalised opinion on the flat earth conspiracy theory, then any variation of that will not need further consideration and can just be ignored/dismissed, but only because you've established that general opinion that still applies. >

The square earth theory is not at all like the flat earth theory.  You just don't understand it.
Are you now less strong in your own ideas about the shape of the earth?  
If I say that your car will 1 in 1,000,000 times turn right when you turn the wheel left are you doing to know not hold a strong opinion about how your car behaves?  Should an insurance company raise rates until they fully understand that idea, and the thousand I can write right here that should knock away confidence in current knowledge?  Simply because I pose it? >

I'm not sure. Do I need to know the ideas fueling flat earth conspiracies before I can strongly believe that the earth is not flat? Or can I trust the volumes of research and science? >

I think you can appeal to established foundational opinions. If you have previously formed an opinion on the trustworthiness of the scientific community and have considered conspiratorial alternatives, that then applies to flat earth. And I genuinely think that's a much better way of forming an opinion on flat earth. >

Im not sure I understand what you mean by this?
What do you mean  "have considered conspiratorial alternatives"?
Do I need to have a strong understanding of Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Matrix, Tortoise Shell, and Interior Cylinder (or whatever its called) theories before I can form an opinion on the shape of the Earth?
Do I entirely invalidate your belief on the shape of the world everytime I invent a new alternative theory?  Or can we stop at a certain point? >

No, but I don't think I explained myself well. I'm saying that if I form a general opinion on how conspiracies are impossible to sustain at a large scale for a long time, and I consider both sides of that general argument before holding that opinion strongly, then when any new claim comes out that posits a large scale, long term conspiracy, I can dismiss it without further analysis. >

Right, but does that constitute understanding the alternate positions?
Or just handwaving them because theyre superficially similar to other positions? >

See my edit, but I think you have to understand it well enough to recognise that fits into a category that you can dismiss. That can be easy for somethings and more considered for others. >

If I may, I think you are struggling here when you are dealing with situations of physical fact. The shape of the earth is ultimately not an opinion but a fact. No arguments really can change the reality of the matter. So, if you see firm incontovertal evidence that the earth is round, no understanding of alternatives is needed to dismiss them.
To contrast this to your example in OP with homophobia. There is no physical facts to do with homophobia, just moral arguments. In order to reject moral arguments, you do need to understand them. How does that sound as an alternative of your position? >

!delta I'm still reformulating but I think this is an important distinction that I might need to account for. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers (4∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Let me try an uncharitable conclusion that I understand I can draw from your position. Do you agree or where do I get it wrong?
"Unless I understand why someone thinks eating babies is fine, I cannot say it is wrong." >

To take that to a more real world example, I actually have listened to people who abuse children, sexually and physically, justify why they believe it’s okay. I think they’re wrong and monstrous, but I have listened and been willing to hear why they hold the view they do. It makes it easier to articulate where they’re wrong, dismantle their arguments, understand and recognize that mindset in others, and avoid people like that in the future. Despite my disgust, this information has actually been applicable in my life. 
Many abuse victims explain similar things. While they regret their abuse occurred, their ability to spot the mindset of someone who will abuse them in the future is quite accurate and applicable in their lives. I met a friend of a friend once and her fiancé. I told our mutual friend to call me if anything happened because I believed her fiancé would abuse her at some point. I am sad to say I was right and our mutual friend contacted me asking what to do much later. That knowledge came from listening. From understanding how the minds of abusive and crappy people think.
It’s not about how much it benefits or doesn’t benefit the person with the awful opinion, it’s about what you can learn and take away from them. Whether that’s strength in your own argument or knowledge for your own life experiences. >

I absolutely agree, understanding the other's position can be extremely useful in a number of ways. And it's something I try to do and still have much to learn on.
Yet this CMV is about it being required to take a strong ethical position. >

I’m not sure what OP would say, but I think I would be willing to say you can be against violence without always understanding the reasons, but you should be willing to listen to them when presented with them? I would need a clear delineation of what constitutes violence. You could argue that meat consumption constitutes violence, some argue that hateful words are violence. I still think it’s best to give yourself the blanket rule on being willing to listen first before becoming an activist of some kind or taking a strong public stance on an issue. The good news is that most examples will not be as heinous as the ones discussed here, and for that reason I do generally think OP is correct. >

I agree again with most of that, though I suggest to avoid guessing what OP's thoughts are. 
As I am one of those people who argue meat consumpion is violence, and you brought it up: What are your thoughts on that? >

Totally with you on that one. Although I acknowledge that in order to feed cats and dogs and similar non-human family members in our lives there may always be a need for the “meat” industry in some capacity. While I would support lab grown meat for pets I suspect the way we would test that theory would not be something I would support… So I’m not sure what the answer is for that part of the meat industry. I do think the least we can do is lower our population and limit consumption. There is a company currently trying to farm octopuses, that is human excess. There is no need for veal, fois gras, and octopus to be cruelly harvested for rich people’s pleasure and those industries should be outlawed without hesitation and permanently. >


Totally with you on that one.

Do I get from this that you're vegan?
On the cats and dogs. There is vegan cat food. The little data there is shows this to be at least as healthy as normal cat food for at least some cats. Vegan dog food has a bit more data and options and is generally easier. The only big problem today is accessibility and specialty vet prescribed food which can limit options to only meat containing ones (I some cases vets can prescribe dogs meat free food as well, e.g. if they have an allergy). >

The one thing I worry about this line of thought is why exactly we feel like we can draw the line with animals on one side and plants on the other with regard to violence. >

Sentience. Animals (with very few exceptions) can experience, while plants (with no exceptions) cannot. >

The main thing I take issue with is this: 

When you actually understand somebody else's opposing opinion, a lot of the time you realise that they're not a bad person, they're just mistaken/misguided.

You are completely leaving out one of the main reasons people disagree: They simply have different values from you. I would strongly recommend The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt to get a better understanding of how different world-views place their emphasis on different values. This also means that, in fact, some people really are bad people, i.e. they simply have no compassion for other people or at least some groups. >

100%, but it also clarifies that too.
Somebody could think that the nuclear family is a fundamental building block of society, and that eroding it will erode society in the long term. They have no issue with individual people being gay, and would never want to get in the way of two people loving each other, and they know a few gay couples they're good friends with, but they have an issue with society encouraging more same-sex relationships, especially for bi people who could be in straight "traditional" families.
You can also have somebody who just finds gay people disgusting and thinks it's all degenerate.
From a policy perspective these two people might be quite similar, but I would argue that from a moral perspetive they are worlds apart, and making the distinction is really important. >


From a policy perspective these two people might be quite similar, but I would argue that from a moral perspetive they are worlds apart, and making the distinction is really important.

Are they? I've seen in real time the shift from "I'm okay with gay people; it's the gay agenda I don't like" to "mentioning your sexuality is part of the gay agenda" with the whole groomer panic. People who are fine with queer individuals but not on a societal level don't meaningfully mitigate the "it's all degeneracy" crowd.
So when you say,

but they have an issue with society encouraging more same-sex relationships, especially for bi people who could be in straight "traditional" families

Aside from being pretty nakedly hostile towards bisexuals and their agency, I don't especially need to sympathize with whatever "society encouraging more same-sex relationships" means to maintain a strong position against homophobia, nor do I need to give them "good person" credit. To bring it back to the more general point, not every allegedly nuanced wrinkle in an opposing argument merits rethinking some basic values. >

Yes, but if you conflate the two arguments (and I've seen both arguments in the wild), you're going to be far less effective in arguing or defending your position relative to them.  Plus, it's kind of bad faith to go "these two people are arguing for similar policies, so I'm going to arguing at them as if they both were the worst version of that argument." >


Yes, but if you conflate the two arguments (and I've seen both arguments in the wild), you're going to be far less effective in arguing or defending your position relative to them.

Do I have it right that you're saying treating them as the same means I argue against them the same way, which may not be effective?
In that case, that may be true if you're in for a structured debate that you intend to win, and to persuade an audience to your side. I can see that, yeah. But if we're just going by OP's view that one shouldn't have a strong opinion unless each flavor of the opposing position is individually considered, I'd say structured debate isn't the be all and end all, and one can be pretty secure in their opinion regardless of which of the two arguments or some new one they're encountering.

Plus, it's kind of bad faith to go "these two people are arguing for similar policies, so I'm going to arguing at them as if they both were the worst version of that argument."

If we're accepting it as true that the policies are similar, then yeah, I don't feel especially compelled to let one put my conviction into question more than the other. If we're not accepting it as true that the policies are similar, then yeah, treat different arguments as different for sure. >

I have absolutely no idea what a serial killer is thinking or their rationale behind it. But I STRONGLY believe that they are wrong. >

I did make a concession in my OP that there could be some room for some dogmatic rules that aren't justified. Murder seems to be a reasonably obvious one but you have to be careful you're not pre-loading the judgement, or that the definition can't be stretched. You could consider an abortion doctor to be a serial killer, but it's useful to understand their perspective. >

You need to say more strongly that you've changed your position. To keep your position unchanged you need label certain opinions "dogmatic rules" or "fundamental building blocks" or "foundational scientific facts", then just ignore them or their opposition willy-nilly as you decide.
As I scroll this thread there are more and more examples of you doing this. >

I think that US letter and DIN A4 are roughly similar but different sizes of paper.   How am I supposed to "reasonably explain" the views of someone who insists that the two are the same?

... that they would broadly agree with ...

People have a lot of views where they really just haven't thought things through carefully.   Should I expect then to agree that they haven't thought things through?
I tend to think that anti-vaxers have a lot of emotional motivation for holding those views, but I doubt that they're ready to admit that.

... A variation on my proposed model is likely the easiest way to change my mind. ...

Is it possible that this view is more about the idea that people should engage in discussions with sensitivity - that is to say, with consideration of the feelings of the other people that are involved in the discussion - than about actually being about the substance of another side in an argument? >

I think you can literally just take it down to:
"You think US letter and DIN A4 are exactly the same size". That is a crystal clear explanation of their view. You can then have the conversation of how they would go about proving that e.g. googling the dimensions, procuring physical samples and measuring/comparing them etc.
You don't have to explain it in a way that *you* agree with, just that *they* agree with.
I do think it is about a good faith effort to understand their position as far as you can and identify where you disagree (where possible). It has a side effect of being more sensitive and polite which is a bonus. >

Your view has exceptions for the, uh, really obvious stuff.
​
I have a strong opinion on rape. I think it's terrible and should continue to be illegal.
​
I cannot reasonably explain the other side of this, because I cannot fathom one that would be reasonable.
​
My strong opinion drives certain action when I learn that a friend that has been raped. I up my empathy, and drop at least one gentle encouragement to seek out therapy to help overcome the trauma. I think this behavior is probably a net benefit for the communities I am involved in.
​
If I apply your view, then my opinion would not be as strong anymore, and that would not drive me to be as empathetic towards victims, this change resulting in small, but net detriment on those around me. >

Absolutely, I've addressed this across various different comments but to compile it all here:
I'm open to some opinions in society being dogmatically followed without proper justification or understanding. It's just a good idea that rape is bad and basically the whole of society agrees.
I'm open to that and I completely accept the negative effects that you mentioned (and I even talked about them more generally in my OP) but I have reservations.
I think when you allow for the unarticulated support or derision of a particular act such as rape, you tend to see that the definition gets widened. We see this with rape vs active consent, we see this with "racist" vs "benefitting from a systemically racist society", we see it with "fascist" vs "not fully supportive of LGBT". There seems to be a constant drive to categorise people we don't like into the box where we don't need to consider their arguments any more.
I think getting rid of that box could get rid of that behaviour and I think that would be beneficial. >

I agree with you on the expanding definitions, and the implied danger of having dogmatic beliefs due to the "scope creep " that can happen. 
What is your differentiating criteria? I.e. how do you determine what should follow the rule as opposed to this dogma exception? >

One issue is that there often isn't one "other side" of the argument. There could be thousands of reasons why people think being homophobic is ok. Do I really need to explain each one before I can hold a strong opinion that homophobia is wrong?
Fundamentally, I think there are two ways to reach a conclusion. One is to investigate evidence and determine a logical answer. The other is to rule out all alternate explanations. Your CMV essentially demands the latter. But consider a statement such as "2 + 2 = ?". Using the former method, I can generate a logical answer that 2 + 2 = 4 without having to consider arguments for 2 + 2 equalling any other number, but under the latter (your method), I'd have to first explain why 2 + 2 ≠ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, ... , ∞, before I can hold the strong opinion that 2 + 2 = 4, which is an impossible task, given that there are infinite alternate arguments. >

This is absolutely true for positions that you can demonstrate as being entirely logically consistent, but the problem there is that it infinitely fractals.
Whatever argument you make for homosexuality being OK is going to have a premise in it that somebody could disagree with. So you then have to demonstrate that premise. And so on it goes.
You can express lots of positions in a way that sound very compelling when presented in isolation, but it's only when they're faced with opposition do they show their weaknesses more clearly. >


This is absolutely true for positions that you can demonstrate as being entirely logically consistent

Would you say your view has shifted/changed, then?

Whatever argument you make for homosexuality being OK is going to have a premise in it that somebody could disagree with. So you then have to demonstrate that premise. And so on it goes.

This is the exact issue I raised in my previous post: there could be thousands of reasons why people think being homophobic is ok. Do I really need to explain each one before I can hold a strong opinion that homophobia is wrong? How can anyone hold a strong opinion when there are endless opposing arguments for them to understand and explain?
Put simply, if everyone followed your advice, no one would be able to form a strongly held opinion. >

No, I was arguing that you can't argue that homosexuality is OK to an objective standard like in maths where you don't need to consider any counter arguments. >

I got that, so were left with understanding/explaining opposing arguments, and I pointed out that there could be thousands of reasons why people think being homophobic is ok. Do I really need to explain each one before I can hold a strong opinion that homophobia is wrong? How can anyone hold a strong opinion when there are endless opposing arguments for them to understand and explain?
Put simply, if everyone followed your advice, no one would be able to form a strongly held opinion. >

What about situations where people are simply removed from reality and their opinion or position is, therefore, not based in reality.
Think about the MAGA cult.  If one of them is of the belief that January 6th was a false flag attack by Antifa, there isn't really anything to "understand" in their opinion.  It's just wrong and not based in reality.
Or even, on a more broad sense, that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen and that Donald Trump actually won.  If were to "briefly describe the opposing side's view", I'd say that they hold their view because their divorced from reality and Donald Trump told them what to think.  That's a pretty damn accurate explanation, but I highly doubt that they "would broadly agree with" with that explanation.
Overall, I think your view holds up well if everyone's view is actually based upon facts (even better if those facts are verifiable).  It might even work if views are based upon unprovable beliefs (as in religion, where there are no indisputable "facts" that prove god does or does not exist).
But when people form views based upon false "facts", there isn't really anything to understand.  They're just wrong. >

I'm not saying you have to explain their opinion in a logically consistent manner of "You think A and B and so C must obviously follow". For the MAGA example, you could simply say "You think there was a co-ordinated effort by the liberal establishment to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by faking democrat votes and/or not counting republican votes. Considering how close the final result was, this changed the outcome of the election and was the biggest political scandal in US history and an assault on US democracy. The appropriate response in that instance was to try to overturn that fraudulent result".
Now you likely have a point of agreement, which is that if the election actually was stolen, it would probably be justified to use violence to overturn the result. (You could maybe argue that you'd have to first exhaust the other remaining non-violent options e.g. the courts). You then come to an understanding that you both just disagree on the fact of whether there was widespread election tampering or not, you can say that they haven't provided sufficient evidence, and that all the court cases brought on this were dismissed etc etc,
But more importantly both sides come out with a better understanding of each other, a more humanised view of each other, and a potential opening for further productive conversation. In the model you're proposing, you both call each other names, everybody digs their heels in, and society continues to get more divided. >


The appropriate response in that instance was to try to overturn that fraudulent result

No, the appropriate response would be to present your objections in court and seek legal remedy, which they did. Almost every single legal avenue they walked down was closed to them as their claims were ultimately not supported by material reality. The appropriate response to this is not "overthrow the government", and I don't think I'll ever be able to understand or reasonably explain why people thought that way. That does not mean that I shouldn't have a very strong opinion on the attempt. My opinion is not in any way contingent on my understanding of their irrationality. >

What if their view is "yeah Jan 6th was a mistake, we should have gone through the peaceful and legal route first, but everybody was so angry and it just happened, kind of like the riots with BLM."? >

As soon as they compare what they did to what the BLM movement did, I know they are not arguing in good faith. One was a social movement that attempted to bring attention to the disparate policing practices facing some Black Americans, and one was a violent insurrection attempting to overthrow the legitimately and democratically elected government. >

With respect, I don't agree.
You and I probably agree on most things politically, and they are absolutely wrong, but I don't think that they are arguing in bad faith just because they are wrong.
From their perspective BLM was a massive social movement aimed at destabilizing the entire US system, including destroying the very concept of policing (defund the police) while Jan 6th was an attempt to rescue a stolen election.
This is sort of the OP's point, if anything. You fundamentally don't understand their point of view. You are assuming that they're all liars, when in fact they're simply wrong on the facts. >


You are assuming that they're all liars, when in fact they're simply wrong on the facts.

While I agree with that framing generally speaking, I think a crucial part is missing. That is, they tend to be "wrong on the facts" in very motivated and self-serving ways. It's not that they're all liars, not exactly, but they're falling pray to a lot of motivated thinking that just so happen to support wrong-headed core beliefs. Arguing that a colorful tapestry of lies, half-truths and unsupported claims "make sense from their perspective" sort of leave us in the middle of a barren field. >

"They" just spent four years hearing about how their guy only won because the 2016 election was stolen.  I have had people who voted for Clinton half-seriously openly speculate, to this day, that Trump is a Russian asset despite the House report being very clear that was not the case. 
If you do spin election interference for your own political gain, then acting surprised when the other side raises the issue is just thinking in...

very motivated and self-serving ways. It's not that they're all liars, not exactly, but they're falling pray to a lot of motivated thinking that just so happen to support wrong-headed core beliefs. >


"They" just spent four years hearing about how their guy only won because the 2016 election was stolen.

No. They have spent around 3 years hearing about an investigation - by Trump's own justice department - into Russian interference in the election, which revealed interferences took place. 
Did some people oversell that? Yeah. Did the Democrat jump wholesale in election denial like we're seeing the republicans doing now? No. >

Yes, Russian interference contributed to Trump getting elected.  He also had help from the Clinton campaign who used their "Pied-piper strategy to intentionally elevate Trump and push out less extreme Republican candidates in order for her to have a better chance at winning.  Interference in the election doesn't mean that Clinton should have won or that Trump's election should be challenged.  Russian interference was done to destabilize the country and not for his benefit even though he benefited from it.
Yet, when asked about challenging the election in 2017 by Gross, Clinton stated:

Gross: I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?
Clinton: No. I would not. I would say –
Gross: You’re not going to rule it out?
Clinton: No, I wouldn’t rule it out. 

Again, perfectly circumspect and understandable statements but... it does directly put at issue whether it was a legitimate election.
Statements made by Clinton in 2020:

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”
“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”
Clinton also offered copious criticism of President Trump, saying she warned the country about her former rival, and “it was even worse than I thought it was.”
“I really did feel sometimes like the tree falling in the forest. I believed he was a puppet of Putin. I believed that there was relevant, important information in his tax returns. I believed he did not have the temperament to be president, he was unfit—not a partisan comment, but an assessment of him,” the former secretary of state said.

You can come to your own conclusions on the appropriateness of those statements in an election year. >

I think the issue with this is that it tends to get co-opted by bad faith actors a lot of the time. I think most of us know at least one or two people who are ridiculously passionate about something and will swear up and down that 'you just don't get it.' Now imagine validating that at scale. You don't believe in god? Because you obviously don't understand? You think you do? Well they don't. So now they can ignore you and hide behind this idea to justify their shittyness
Then there's the question of what's reasonable? I get that you probably went intentionally low so as to keep the barrier small. But. The fact is 3 sentences isn't all that much. The fact is we have no objective measure of that understanding in short form. So we have 2 choices

We let the opposition decide who knows, which makes it too easy to shut down conversation by calling your opponent unnowledgable and refusing to listen
We let others decide; and letting other people decide what I really believe (speak for me in general) is fairly high on my list of things that make a nightmare scenario. >

I think most people have a pretty good intuition for good faith engagement. If I make a good faith effort to explain their opinion back to them and they can't articulate why I haven't got it right, that seems pretty bad faith. Most people would get that. Also I'm not saying you need to get every opposing person to align with you, just at least somebody on the other side. >


just at least somebody on the other side.

See but again that's a terrible bar. Rasputin claimed he was a christian, yet he drank and fucked his whole life right till his death. He believed closeness to god included copious amounts of sexual sin by all accounts. 
I don't think you could realistically point to him and say 'see a christian agrees with me.'

I think most people have a pretty good intuition for good faith engagement. If I make a good faith effort to explain their opinion back to them and they can't articulate why I haven't got it right, that seems pretty bad faith. 

Then why do we need this rule. Either people have a good intuition and so can catch themselves and others when they start making a caricature of others, or they have a bad intuition which is why we need this rule. Both those things can't be true at once >

It's the effort to understand that makes the difference. If you make the effort to understand and they get evasive to not give you a clear understanding, I think most people pick up on that. >

This is kind of what I was getting at with this point:

You could also argue that a certain level of dogma is acceptable in a society and that not all opinions are equal in how they should be scrutinised.

My main issue with this is that it doesn't seem to be very effective to declare something an inalienable right if you haven't got pretty much everybody on board. Look at the issue of trans acceptance in the UK. It's been a protected characteristic in law since 2010 but transphobia is rife. I don't believe that shutting down conversation help anything. There are some foundational things you need to agree on to have a conversation, but they're super super foundational like "logic works" and "we both exist" rather than the other topics that actually get debated once you get off the ground with those. >


It's been a protected characteristic in law since 2010 but transphobia is rife

In the US, the civil rights act of 1964 passed in 1964.  Loving v virginia was decided in 1967.
but, most of the US didn't support interracial marriage until the 1980's, and it took even longer in some states.
historically, 10 years isn't a long time for attitudes on discrimination to shift. >

OP do you think there is a reptilian "soul-net" in the sky preventing human souls from escaping the matrix? >

This is an interesting point where I think you can appeal to more foundational opinions. So for instance if you have already considered the existence of the soul and can describe the other side of that argument, then you can have a strong opinion on this too as it relies on belief in the soul. Same with simulation theory, same with aliens etc. etc. >

I honestly don't see how that's feasible. If you said that to an r/escapingprisonplanet proponent (yup, it exists), they'll gladly inform you that no, they're not talking about "soul" the way you think you know. The earthly religions are a ploy, you see, the reptilians purposefully made them to confuse us, yadda yadda.
What I'm saying is that your solution either a)actually does what you're advocating against, just with a small preliminary step of "have I considered something similar sounding before?" or b) forces you to interact with every wacko idea indepth, as thats where their differences lie
edit. And I would argue that we all actually choose option a). Even the people you're criticizing for rejecting ideas outright, reject them for some reason, right? I'd argue it's the exact same mechanism you're proposing, just not verbalized >

Awarding a !delta for highlighting how, as a sense check, ideas that seem patently absurd probably shouldn't need understanding well to dismiss. I have a slight caveat that I've put in the edit of my OP, but this definitely challenged me enough to move my opinion slightly. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mr_Makak (10∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

So the other side of this CMV is that you don’t need to be able to reasonably explain the other side of an argument to have a strong opinion. Can you do that? >

As I mentioned in my OP, the reason I'm here is to try to get a better understanding of the other side of the argument as I don't feel I can express it clearly yet and so obviously it would be hugely hypocritical. >

I agree with this to a degree but often the argument against a person’s view is it’s inability to coherently define its position. It’s not my fault they aren’t persuasive. This shouldn’t prevent me from having an opinion on something I’ve taken time to understand. >

There's maybe a grey area here where I'm talking about "the other side" not "any individual person's opinion". An individual person may not be able to articulate their pro-life or pro-choice position, but you can articulate those positions. >

This seems to be more so a war on dismissiveness, morally based shutdowns, assumptions, and ‘ideology defensive instinct’. A problem I see with this is that this is simply how unpracticed thinkers or those who lack certain kinds of introspection think. Ideally you are correct, however huge gaps in people’s thinking patterns make such things irrelevant. An ideal rule applied to people of instinct will only result in warping. Also there is the problem of perspective, which to a degree is unable to be communicated but lays the foundation of logical thought. >

I think there's an interesting point here but I haven't fully followed it. Would you mind elaborating? >

What you are trying to approach with this concept is a circumstance where people are open minded and not overly invested in a position to where it clouds their judgement. I would bet that an actual understanding of the other side of an argument is less important than the willingness to understand it in your mind.
I’m very for this as well but this can be summed up as “intellectual honesty” and the fact is that many people use intellectualism and ideology as a front for other means, consciously or unconsciously. People are very rational creatures but sometimes rational can be a “calculated wrong”. Before you understand another sides actual argument it is also important to note how their position serves them personally or psychologically. If someone just so happens to have the exact ideological beliefs of their peers then perhaps it is not an actual ideology but a useful tool. >

Isn't there a basically infinite amount of sides to take on every issue? How many opposing opinions do you need to understand before you are allowed to strongly hold the belief? >

Yeah somebody else brought this up and it's one of the compelling arguments I've got from this. Still pondering on it, but I think you should generally be reaching more foundational-based opinions on a subject. >

What do you mean foundational-based? >

The main example I've been giving is for flat earth. The main reason I don't believe in flat earth isn't because I've looked at all the experiments they've done, it's because I have more foundational opinion on the trustworthiness of the scientific community and the limitation of conspiracies. I therefore don't need to understand the intricacies of all the different variations of the flat earth theory, I just have to understand that a core tenet is a world-wide conspiracy that completely contradicts the entire scientific community. That's enough for me to then dismiss it as I already have an established opinion on that more foundational topic. >

Well ok but that seems like a lay-up, no offense. Feels like political issues, which may be the heart of your CMV, are going to be far more complicated. I understand why you're able to so easily dismiss flat earthers. >


briefly describe the opposing side's view in a way that they would broadly agree with. You don't need to fully understand the detail, and you don't need to get it 100% right, you just have to be able to explain their view in your own words of 1-3 sentences, and for them to basically go "yeah, you've pretty much got it".
You can still have an opinion on something, but that opinion should be more softly held, in recognition that you don't really know the other side of the argument and so are more likely to be wrong in some way.

The problem here is that I can control your ability to have strong opinions by simply opposing you and then withholding my approval of your explanation of my views.
If you think being gay is okay, I can deny you the "right" to have a strong position on that by telling you I disagree and insisting you don't adequately understand my counter position.
Hell, if you think being straight is okay, I can deny you the right to have a strong position the same way. I can likewise deny you the right to have a strong position on having kids (you don't adequately understand the antinatalist position), on allowing interracial marriage (and also monoracial marriage), or anything else.
If you follow your rules, you literally can't strongly advocate for any position if you are opposed by someone willing to argue in bad faith. And you can't stop people from arguing in bad faith.
This kind of bad faith withholding of approval is something I come across a lot, actually. It is a favorite tactic of some of my right wing relatives. The way it works is that they overhear me say something they disapprove of, then tell me I'm wrong and offer some vague reason why. If I try to explain my position, they simply restate theirs. If I oppose theirs, they argue that I don't understand it well enough to have a valid opinion, and ask me to try to explain their position. When I do, they deny that my explanation is good enough, restate their position, and ask me to try again.
You see what is happening here, yes? Rather than being able to advocate for my own position, or challenge theirs, this tactic allows them to completely monopolize the conversation without having to prove anything.
The entire conversation becomes either me trying to argue in favor of their position in order to gain their approval, or them calling me a fool for opposing it and talking about it themselves. Rather than presenting evidence that their position is correct, all they have to do is question whether my understanding of their position is correct, and claim that my position is invalid if I don't understand theirs (or more accurately if they choose not to accept my explanation of their position). Their evidence becomes their ability to call me stupid.
I spent years running around in their little house of mirrors before I understood what they were doing and learned to counter it.
And on a larger societal level, what you are describing here is what has allowed a lot of BS to muscle its way into politics. For instance, people who insist the 2020 US Presidential election was stolen insist they believe there was fraud but then, no matter how many investigations and hearings show that nothing bad happened, simply insist it isn't good enough, and demand more. 
By subordinating your ability to strongly advocate for a position to someone else's approval/satisfaction, you allow anyone willing to argue in bad faith to roll you again and again and again.
(Note: a way to counter such bad faith arguments is to root your beliefs in very basic, widely shared values, and facts based in reality. For instance, when I advocate for the legitimacy of gay marriage and relationships, I do so by saying that I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want unless there is evidence that them doing so interferes with other peoples' freedom or is otherwise harmful.
A person who wants to oppose you has to either explain why they don't think people should be free to live how they like (which is the actual underlying belief of homophobes--they just don't want to own up to it) or try to provide evidence why being gay is harmful...and there isn't any.
Because I am focusing on the root issues--freedom and effects in reality--it denies bad faith actors the plausible deniability they need in order to hide and exploit rules of discourse. It also focuses the conversation on what is actually important: do participants believe in the core value of freedom, or not? Are participants paying attention to reality, or not?
And the benefit of this is that I don't have to jump through hoops for someone who doesn't share a core belief in freedom and/or isn't looking at reality, because I know that I will never agree with such a person. If we can't agree that people should be able to live how they like unless it is harmful, we're obviously not going to agree on specific policies like gay marriage, and so it's a waste of time to talk about anything but the core value difference (and possibly a waste of time to talk at all)) >

Just to refer back to your delta as it pertains to your original proposition as it's stated in your title: Not everything is an argument.  
It sounds like a lot of the pushback here is addressing your proposition as though every possible pronouncement constitutes an argument. I'm fine with leaving the definition of what we're talking about somewhat nebulous, or defining it by context, which seems more useful.
It seems clear that your (OP's) position is a formulation of John Stuart Mill's famous dictum:

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.

Mill goes on to clarify that getting the second hand description of the opposition argument is not a suitable stand in for hearing the argument for someone who believes it in their heart.
There's an inherent elitism in this sentiment. You are free to ignore people who can't/don't take your position into account, whether because they are unwilling or unable.
The core reason this issue is coming up is because [redacted] is being used to hide and misrepresent arguments rather than to refute them. It is a way of controlling people by dividing them at every issue. People think they are on one side of an issue because they don't know what the other side is. People on the other side are simply villainized and silenced. Without controls being imposed, the sides would have the opportunity to trend toward tolerance, agreement, and understanding. >

I think that this sets up a false dichotomy about strength of opinion.  I think my opinion is justified in being strong if I am familiar with a large amount of evidence backing up my belief.  If someone seeks to challenge that opinion then they should provide compelling evidence that rivals your one's in strength.    
I feel strongly that the earth is round.  I believe in round earth theory.  If someone seeks to change my mind about that they have give me good evidence because I hold this belief strongly.  If somebody comes to me with 'banana earth' theory, I don't give them good chances of changing my mind because I have a lot of evidence for round earth.  That doesn't mean I won't hear what they have to say, they just don't get a big time slot before I move on.  For other topics like ideal foreign policy for the middle east, I don't have nearly the same stack of evidence, so I wouldn't say I hold this opinion strongly.  But this is a statement about my own evidence for my position, and not about familiarity with evidence against my position.   
What's really important is just being honest about whether or not one has information about the opposing position, but on matters of importance I do think it's on the side of whomever is trying to convince you to put enough good evidence forward to cause an intellectually honest person to dig deeper.  Something that I doubt banana earth theorists could manage. >

What is your explanation for the other side of the argument on this matter? >

I broadly agree, but taken to the illogical extreme, I think I'm allowed to have a strong opinion on whether or not I should be tortured to death despite my inability to understand someone's insane gibberish on why my suffering is somehow a desirable thing.
*edit:
To expand upon this, there are many ideas that are not the product of someone's incomplete information and taking differing assumptions ("I think Ivermectin treats covid"/"Oh my god this guy is eating horse dewormer!"), or a differening opinion based on different values ("Abortion is murder"/"How dare you tell women what they can do with their bodies"), but are based on nothing. There is nothing to understand. You're literally talking to a crazy person ("Sam Bankman is literally a Jovian lizard"). Or heavens help you, you're talking to someone that is generations deep into a crazy person rabbit hole ("The earth is flat"). 
These aren't mere statements of opinion, but statements of fact that are so thoroughly unsubstantiated and unsupported, that their complete lack of evidence means you don't even need to engage with them. Or to use the atheist catch phrase, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The crazy man on the street corner preaching about the invisibile dragon that lives in every microwave oven can be quite safely ignored without having to dissect and understand his assertions. He's a crazy man. Asserting something with no evidence. >

I will argue along the lines of your first rebuttal (or perhaps this is clarification).
Most opinions have multiple other sides, and thus there is no onus on myself to search all of them out, learn of them, and rebut all of them before securing my strong opinion.
This is especially important when an argument is being pushed or propagandized. As this creates a situation where there is an rebuttal whack-a-mole until something sticks enough or there is enough confusion that people give up or cede a strong opinion because the waters have been made too murky.
I think it also important to point out that in they day and age of algorithms, that there are groups that will bombard you if you even show a little interest in a subject and more than a couple of studies to show it works. You have to be careful what you put into searches (google, Tick-Tok, Facebook, YouTube, etc).
I think an example will best illustrate my position:
I have seen the population data on the efficacy of vaccines. Between vaccines and modern sanitation they have saved a ton of lives and improved the quality of life of much more people than vaccines could possibly hurt (I have seen quite a bit more evidence, but this is the TLDR). Think of small pox eradication, polio elimination in modern countries, etc.
I am aware of some counter arguments (i.e. vaccine courts, "poison" in the vaccine - the inflammation response is how they work, etc.) but in the end there is no anti-vax argument that is going to convince me to not get vaccinated/ boosted or having my kids vaccinated which I think would qualify as a strongly held opinion. I feel that I have done my due diligence and that if anyone is to change my mind, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
To be honest I don't really understand the anti-vax movement or its arguments. It to me seems to be an amorphous opinion that seems to want people not to get vaccinated (or turn to "natural remedies") for constantly changing reasons. Delving into it is dangerous for my search history and all in-person encounters I have had have basically involved them pointing out that vaccines are dangerous because of X reasons (all of them factually incorrect), but since we get our facts from different places that argument could never get any further than that.
I will actually go a step further because of the way algorithms work sometimes searching out rebutting arguments (i.e. antivax) will cause the internet to try and convince you. My wife had a project for school that had her researching vaccines, and just googling what was in a vaccine and how they were made had her bombarded with a whole ton of anti-vax websites, youtube, etc. These adds and recommendations were pretty sticky up to about 3 months before they returned to normal. 
*Note to anyone who wants to google these things: use incognito mode or a burner accounts. >

Based. 
No rebuttal. Thanks for coming. >

Let me use an example.
Me and my friend both see the same ball.
I say the ball is red.
They say the ball is blue.
I taker the time to understand their position and learn that they are colorblind. I use a spectrometer to determine the true color of the ball as best as can be measured and find it is red.
I have taken the time and completely understand where my friend is coming from and why they believe the ball is blue and yet I would say I am very certain and have a strong opinion that the ball is in fact red when using common language.  
I'll just add that for the most part I agree with you and think it is always good to spend more time understanding the other position since we often think disagreements are simple and villainize the other side when really they are based on more foundational differences in belief or values that are much more understandable. >

The white/gold or blue/black dress is probably a good counter example here. >

It's seems like a completely different example to me. Can you elaborate a bit more? >

Me and my friend both see a picture of a dress.
I say the dress is white and gold.
My friend says the dress is blue and black.
This lead to a worldwide debate, and while there technically was an objective answer to what colour the physical dress was, the answer of what colour the dress was *in the picture* was actually subjective based on the presumed white balance. >

Remember that If someone changed your view even slightly, it warrants a delta >

What if the other argument is nothing but lies made up in bad faith purposefully designed to be as hard to understand as possible in order to obfuscate the issue?
For example "toxic masculinity" the actual academic literature on it is nothing but a mess of bullshit design so people can say masculinity is bad while at the same time pretending they are being more nuanced than that. 
Same thing applies to the whole black people can't be racist and "white privledge" bullshit. The arguments are nothing but moving goalposts and the proponents of it will never admit you nailed their position down they'll just say you're too stupid to understand. 
Same thing with economists saying inflation is good or that we need more immigration for the economy. >

I think whether their claims are true or false is besides the issue, the important thing is to understand their claims, even if false >

Again their claims are purposefully designed to be impossible to understand. Literal gibberish. >

"toxic masculinity is the idea that men needs to be strong, not show emotions or be the breadwinner in a family to be a man, and this harms both men and women"  
"black people can't be racist because racism needs power to hurt someone in any meaningful way, and black people do not have that racial punch to their words"  
"white privilege is the privilege to be the default, and having all the benefits that entails, like being represented in media, not being seen as a threat/outsider because of your race, and more likely to have been born into a more well-off family than in poverty"  
is there anything particularly gibberish about these 3 paragraphs? keep in mind i disagree with 2 of the paragraphs here but i would like to think i still have a grasp on what the people espousing these claims mean >

Those aren't the claims of the academics, an academic would tell you that's not what it means. >

What IS the claims of academics then? Because i would think i couldn't be too far off >

That's the point, good luck figuring it out, it's nothing but bullshit, gibberish and goalpost moving. >

So even though you don't know the claims of the academics, you know for a fact that what i said is not the claims? How do you figure that? >

Because they've said it isn't that when someone was trying to pin down their position. >

I cannot reasonably explain flat earth but I’m 100% against this nonsense. >

The fact that you've described it as nonsense means you're appealing to something else here. See my many other comments on this exact example. >

I’m not sure what you mean by your comment. Flat earth is nonsense. I don’t need to know anything about their position to have a strong opinion against it. >

I see a lot of people discussing how the other side argues in bad faith. Here's my spin on that.
What about a scenario where the actual justification is shrouded in doublespeak. Party A wants voting to be easy for people who don't own cars and can't take a weekday off work. Party B wants to "prevent voter fraud" with bureaucratic hoops to exercise the right to vote.
Any accusation that is introduced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence since the burden of proof is on the accuser. There is no proof of consistent voter fraud despite extensive studies, and there are auditing methods available against the voting registry that can forensically track legitimacy of votes if called into question all without making it more difficult on the individual voter.
The only justifiable reason is that party B has for such an issue is because they know less privileged demographics are less likely to vote for them so they prevent them from being able to vote with weaponized bureaucracy.
which they will never admit despite it being the only justifiable reason for their actions.
Should I, as a hypothetical fence sitter, have to give equal time to the stated reason when an actual reason has a deeper explanation, but that actual reason is part of party As talking points, so party B will endlessly argue more attention is given to the other side.
I understand the damage fraudulent voting could hypothetically cause, and why some tech illiterate people believe it cannot be proven either way, so they gravitate to the side with the more simplistic argument. 
What I don't understand is how someone would need a skill threshold (recognizing fallacies is a skill) to have a valid opinion.
I'm not saying that a certain level of dogma is acceptable in society per se. I am essentially applying the assumption of economics "people are rational" to the formation of opinions that are based on reasoning and their limited point of view.
Should their opinion be regarded less because it is not as thoroughly backed up? No, because that opinion will exist regardless of external validity and it will influence their vote and anyone like them. Eventually a politician will come along and make the voter feel like the long-ignored good guy and ride a populist wave to power.
You are stating an idealist view, my view on this subject in particular is realist. You're essentially saying people shouldn't be simple minded and that's not a realistic goal, and pursuit of it can have consequences like the rise of incompetent leaders under the guise of populism. >

This may be true when the other side of the argument is based on verifiable, factual information and you just disagree with it.  But, it is NOT true if the other side is based on pure gut feeling, emotions and conspiracy theories. >

That’s a bit demanding and unnecessary.
If someone claims the earth is flat, there are at this point hundreds of potential reasons they think so. I don’t need to know any of the reasons they believe the earth is flat to strongly condemn the opinion as ignorant and demonstrably untrue.
Same thing with people that say COVID is a hoax. The details of why they believe it are immaterial. They are wrong. Demonstrably and factually wrong. 
Issues of morality are generally more nuanced and not subject to objective right and wrong, but there is a similar test that we may apply.
Is the belief in question used to enforce inequality or advantage/disadvantage? Does it cause harm?
If yes, then I don’t need to understand why someone thinks the way they do. It does not in even the slightest change the discussion to know why someone thinks homosexuals should not have the same rights. Their position is morally wrong and there is no justification that changes the conclusion. >

There are some viewpoints that are so ridiculously stupid that they don't bear considering, and you can have a strong counter-opinion without doing so.
Take the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook shooting was fake, that no children were killed, and that the parents of those children are fake crisis actors.
This is a real opinion that a small but real minority hold. I have no idea why they hold it, and I don't give a fuck.
Now, I could research these groups, find out what their arguments are, and then summarize them.
I could do that. 
But I'm not going to. I won't waste a single thought on what is going on in these fuckers dysfunctional brains.  
And I'm fine with that.
And I can have the strongly held opinion that the Sandy Hook shooting was real. >

You're basically there though.

Take the conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook shooting was fake, that no children were killed, and that the parents of those children are fake crisis actors.

Now I've said in other places that we appeal to more foundational opinions and I think I need to make that clearer. I actually might need to award some deltas for that if I think about it. >


You're basically there though.

But there's not any "why" there. That is clearly what some people believe, but as to why they believe it, I have no idea (other than when I generally demean their minds and character). 
If this is your bar, it is incredibly low. Would it be enough to strongly hold a pro-choice opinion if all I could say about the pro-life argument is "They think abortion is wrong and should be illegal?"

Now I've said in other places that we appeal to more foundational opinions and I think I need to make that clearer. I actually might need to award some deltas for that if I think about it.

What's the foundational opinion here?
Conspiracy theories are possible and have happened.
False flag operations are possible and have happened.
So it's not that I hold this general sort of opinion to be impossible.
But in this case, it's just so patently ridiculous that I don't care what's going on in their feeble minds to explain it. >

Not every arguement is reasonable, not every reason is within reason >

So much is based around believing experts. I cannot prove how a nuclear bomb works, but I can trust those that spent their life learning about it to tell me how it works. Pointing to specialists as a means of proving your point even if you don't know how it works yourself is still very valid. 
Our entire society runs on the concept of trusting professionals about things we don't know anything about and treating what they say as fact. 
If I don't know how a car engine works, but say that it burns gas and someone else says the gas is used to cool the engine. How do I prove them wrong if I don't point to someone elses explanation of how it works? Like literally pointing at a manual the manufacturer made would be inadmissible by your thinking. >

Check my edit in the OP :) >

Your premise is nothing more or less than asserting that no one should ever have strong opinions on anything.
There's a near infinite number of other sides to many, if not most arguments.
Like the correct religion to follow. There's a limitless number of religions, and a multitude of ways and reasons to be non religious. 
Following your reasoning would make it impossible to have any strong opinions on religion. You'd never run out of other sides to understand, and this never be able to justify having a strong opinion.
Furthermore, I suspect you of playing games with your personal definition of "strong". That's a squishy word, a word that's sometimes relative, sometimes absolute. But there's a reasonably functional definition when it comes to opinions, that you clearly are attempting to avoid:
A strong opinion is one you hold with enough certainly to shape your actions.
I don't need to understand flat earthers in order to take the action of booking a flight that takes a great circle route, or make use of satellite based services.
If I was, say, Jewish, I wouldn't need to know anything about other religions in order to not eat pork.
Using my definition of strong opinion, it's impossible to live life without violating your principle.
And you didn't define what you think "strong" means. >

Check my edit in OP >

You didn't define strong opinions.
You hint at something like possibly changing your opinion as defining not strong, but this is useless as a definition. And that doesn't support your premise.
If the threshold for strong is utter immutability, that's so far beyond how the word is used that we aren't conversing in the same language.
If your actual premise is "you should be open to changing your view if you encounter information that makes you change your view" Well. Duh? But that's not what you said.
And you haven't addressed the multitude problem that lots of people have brought up. Having to stop using satellite based systems every time you encounter a new theory that says satellites can't exist sounds impractical. There's no limit to the number of other sides.
This is why knowledge works the way it does in science. You find evidence for a thing, and that's it. That evidence may later be proven wrong, but there's no need to understand incorrect theories in order to act based on evidence.
I'm going to use an epi drip at 8mcg/min, because evidence says that's the most effective treatment for cardiac arrest. I happen to know why some people would choose to drown patients in buckets of epi, but new medics don't, and they don't need to. They only need to know about the current best evidence based practice. If life and death medical decisions don't count as strong opinions, I can't imagine what would. >


Edit: Delta awarded for a slight change of opinion.  
It's been well argued that you can't have to understand and explain every different subtle variation of an idea, and it's also been presented as feeling wrong that you need to justify opposition to ideas that sound absolutely absurd.  
My response to this is that I think you can establish foundational opinions, where the OP rule still applies, but that once established, can be used in the context of any argument down stream from it.  
Doesn't make much sense writtten out like that, but as a practical example: if I form an opinion on how conspiracy theories are impossible to maintain at a large scale for a long period of time, and I review the counter arguments of that opinion before forming it strongly, then now if any theory/argument is presented to be that describes a large scale, long term conspiracy, then I can dismiss it without understanding it. A big caveat here is that I have to understand it well enough to know that it is claiming large scale long term conspiracy.  
I need to work on how to incorporate this into a new guiding principle but putting this edit here for visibility. >

I think your concept is actually quite good in the sense of helping people understand why they do what they do, and does have benefits. But. The flaw is in making it a requirement.
Massive epi doses from my example actually have way more support than any nonsense wacko theory. But they're still the wrong dose. I'm a better care provider for understanding why we previously used the wrong dose. But those that don't understand that still do good work, and save real lives.
So I'd say, it's good practice to be able to understand opposing opinions. But it's in no way a requirement in order to have strong opinions. It's certainly useful to understand why conservative extremists want to murder me for being queer, but if I don't want to learn about their reasons, I can still hold the strong opinion that I don't deserve to be murdered. Having that understanding would make me a more effective activist, but making it a requirement is not something I can get behind. >

I can't reasonably explain the argument of the Nashville bomber.
I strongly believe that his action to bomb a downtown area on Christmas is wrong.
Do you disagree? >

See my edit in the OP :) >

When the British first entered India, they encountered the ancient practice of Sati, where a widow would be burned alive on her husband's funeral pyre. Many of these women were unwilling to subject themselves to such a horrible death so they would be forcibly thrown onto the fire. The British were appalled at the practice. Since most of these early British soldiers did not speak Hindi, they were not able to get a reasonable explanation as to why it was done. All they saw was jeering crowds dragging a crying woman through the streets and burning her alive when she had committed no crime. 
Do you feel that it was wrong for the British to hold a strong opinion on what they witnessed?  
Your position would lead to the conclusion that one cannot hold strong opinions on actions, especially in cases where communication is difficult or impossible. 
The problem with this stance is that certain cultures teach people that some actions are impermissible regardless of the ideas behind them.  The same actions can have multiple different motivations depending on the source. As a Westerner, I have a strong opinion that female circumcision is wrong, and it doesnt matter if the people doing it are motivated by tribal mores, religion, or familial tradition.  The act itself is what violates my core moral code, no matter which line of reasoning led up to it. 
You can say the same thing about genocide. There are as many different justifications for genocide as there are people. Greed, religious differences, tribal affliations, racism, personal vendettas. Do I need to know the nuances of each case to hold a strong opinion that the systematic destruction of a group is wrong?  The Catholic destruction of the Cathars was caused by an entirely different set of circumstances than the Rwandan genocide, so there is no single, reasonable 1-3 line explanation that would be accepted by both groups. 
Your view seems to be focused around internet debate, where people with a mostly common culture are arguing over opinions. It doesn't address actions or wildly dissimilar culturals where truly understanding the other sides view is impossible. It overlooks the idea that different groups can reach the same position from different reasoning as it expects a person to have an explanation for each group holding a position before they are allowed to have a strong opinion opposing it.  In the limited space where one is attempting to convice others with argument, it is a good idea but it falls short in the real world. 
TLDR People can have strong opinions on actions. The same action can have many different motivations from different groups. I do not need to understand every single motivation to hold an opinion on the permissibility of the action itself. >

See my edit on the OP. >

Your edit addresses the diversity of reasoning but I still think you're overlooking actions vs opinions. If you have zero information regarding the motivation of an action, it is still reasonable to possess a strong opinion on the action itself.  In my Sati example, there was very little chance that the foundational opinion you mention could be developed by the rank and file British soldier. They didn't speak the language and had very little understanding of the culture.  There was no English cultural practice they could extrapolate from to explain it. 
Yet having a strong opinion that burning innocent people alive is wrong would be a reasonable reaction to most other cultures. >

For the religious bit, I think that falls under my "foundational opinion" edit in my OP. Foundationally they believe that the bible is the true moral word of god, so anybody else's opinion is irrelevant.
I agree that if you're looking to implement beliefs you should be much more confident of them, but I'm saying that before that you shouldn't even *have* strong beliefs if you haven't considered the other side.
For your homophobic argument I think you're conflating two different topics. One is "is it OK to be gay?" and the other is "is it OK for gay people to be attacked?". You can have a strong and informed opinion on the latter without having a strong and informed opinion on the former. >

There is a principle of science that the burden of proof is place on the person making the claim. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
As such, I think it's perfectly reasonable that a person can hold the opinion "You have not provided adequate evidence for me to accept your claim." I mean you should do your sincere best to understand whatever evidence that a person is providing in good faith but I don't think you should go out of your way to try and interpret that evidence for the person making the claim. >

I think a big complication here is that people often don't explain their beliefs because it's politically disadvantageous to do so. As a result, we often end up arguing facts instead of beliefs (or the soft and cuddly version of beliefs instead of the harsher version of beliefs) and not getting to the heart of why people feel the way they do about an issue.
To take an easy example, when governments were looking to restrict smoking, we had a long debate about whether cigarettes were really harmful, and someone who wanted to ban cigarettes would need to learn all about the junk science around "cigarettes don't cause cancer," but the reality is that the belief was primarily around profits for the tobacco industry, retailers, bars that viewed smoking as good for business, etc.
I think we see similar issues for climate change now, where the issue is people benefitting from (or simply enjoying) the use of fossil fuels, and the question of whether or not climate change is "real" is a screen. I'm not convinced that learning the "actually, more carbon in the atmosphere is good" arguments really informs someone about why people oppose carbon reductions.
We see astroturfing (moneyed interests funding fake grass roots arguments) of this type on many big issues and on both left and right, and I think understanding the other side is often much more complex than simply hearing them out. >

I think there's a difference between "what are people saying?" and "what are the arguments against this?". Both can be important, but you right that the former is subject to bad actors. >

Sometimes the other sides view cant be reasonably explained because its not reasonable. Anti vaxxers for example >

I disagree. I can't reasonably explain why people are racist. It's an insane assumption to assume all of one race are the same in any way. >

I understand lots of things but I'm shit at explaining that understanding. Might be a small exception >

I don’t need to understand or empathizes with the “reasons” for the Holocaust to oppose it. Denying basic human rights, interning people and systematically killing people is always wrong. Japanese interned in America? Wrong. China interning Uiygur Muslims? Wrong. >

What about arguments that aren't strictly logical, like flat earth, and exist only as 'what abouts' for every piece of evidence that points to round earth? You can't reasonably know all those arguments, and you certainly can't construct a reasonable version of the argument because it isn't reasonable. >

This is called a Steel Man argument. It's useful, but couldn't possibly be necessary.
One does not need to understand why someone believes Leprechauns exist or why someone diagnosed with Schizophrenia believes someone is after them. There is simply no reason to believe either. 
Well-form beliefs and opinions are formed from affirming evidence. >

If i say i think the new top gun was a good movie, then why do i need to argue that opinion? Why do i need to care what other people think and what their arguments are? Why shouldn't i choose to staunchly like a movie reguardless of what everyone else thinks about it?
Also, i think killing children is wrong. Should i be indifferent to a psychopath running around killing children just because i don't understand their side of it?
Not every opinion is formed in opposition to an argument, and not every opinion has sides. >

Sometimes, mostly for mental health reasons, people need to hold opinions that they can't necessarily justify in order to keep functioning. (Not that can't be justified, just they personally can't justify it.) You've mentioned societal morals/dogma, but this is slightly different. This also isn't about how you interact with other people, necessarily.
Someone who has cripplingly low self-worth would not necessarily be benefitted by thinking about the people who hate them and why. If they can get to a point where they believe they deserve to be loved and happy without diving into the reasons why someone might disagree, then that is good. The goal is for them to not have crippling depression, not for them to hold their own in a formal debate.
Similarly (sometimes the same situation, even), people who have been abused do not need to be able to empathize with their abuser in order to believe that they didn't deserve to be treated that way. Knowing they didn't deserve it will protect them from being treated like that in the future.
Someone who has an eating disorder might be triggered into a relapse by reading accounts from eating disorder advocates; it's an unnecessary risk. Their opinion about why they shouldn't restrict their eating any more doesn't have to be airtight, it's just important that they get there so they can be healthy.
All these beliefs have to be strongly held ones for the people who hold them to be happiest and healthiest. None of the beliefs hurt others. They might not be the most rigorously tested beliefs, but that's okay. Logic isn't the most important thing. It's just a tool we use. >

My one exception to your rule would be the non fallacious use of ad hominems in a scientific or medical context.
(I.e. the exception to the rule that ad homs are an argument fallacy is when who someone is has a direct relevance to the legitimacy of what they are arguing)
If an established con artist with a track record like John R Brinkley makes a medical claim that something "cures" x disease I don't have to understand the junk science behind their claim to dismiss it strongly.
I have a family member with a disease that science hasn't yet found a cure for. There are dozens of low level charlatans promising cures and no one would have the time to get into the science that deeply for each one. I can spot a grifter at 100 paces and I don't think I need to enter into understanding his arguments to know his claim to know more than medical science is wrong. >

I think the reversability of positions is not guaranteed to be reasonable.  You use homophobia as an example and I think it's a good one, but I don't think that we should reasonably expect the burden of proof to be equal across claims.  
Here are some examples of arguments that can be dismissed without fully understanding them:
Some arguments are too diverse in their absurdity to reasonably explain:
Do you need to understand flat earth arguments to know that they are wrong?  People say all kinds of crazy things to try to refute reality, do I really need to be able to repeat all of them to know that they are wrong?  
Do you need to understand 1800s slave owner arguments to know that black people are in fact people?  They had a lot of varying justifications for slave ownership, do they need to be addressed individually before accepting the consensusthat black people are human beings?.
Some arguments are hard to follow, but simple knowledge defies them
If I try to explain that addition problems are indeterminate and that 3 + 2 can equal anything I want, not just 5 and then try to justify it with a bunch of complicated looking higher math, is it really necessary for someone to understand my bullshit justification in order to know with confidence that 3 + 2 is not 27?
People also claim to have created free energy/perpetual motion machines.  I don't need to know how they are supposed work, I just need to know the first three laws of thermodynamics.
Some arguments are long and nonsensical
Mein Kampf is lengthy and full of fallacies.  Do I need to read and be able to explain the full thing or can I ignore Hitler after observing history, the impact he had, and a quick skim to observe that his reasoning really is fallacious in multiple places?
Some arguments are predicated on forgone conclusion fallacies
Every religious argument supporting homophobia falls into this category.  If we unanimously agreed in the same religion, then maybe the rest of the argument would be worth  exploring, but since it hinges on morality as determined by a third party whose existence and nature is unagreed upon, there really isn't much point getting beyond realizing its a religious argument.
This is not my most structured argument, and I am sure you have a rebuttal to my reasoning so far, but I think this could be a good starting point for a deeper discussion on the burden of proof and reversability.  I  am curious to hear more of your thoughts. >

I am going to disagree. It’s perfectly ok to have a strong opinion on matter, when the evidence is overwhelming.
Let’s use an example:
Flat Earth - the evidence is overwhelming that the earth is round. From simply things like how things appear on the horizon, to that fact that maths and science is applied to make GPS work - and it’s in front of our eyes that GPS works.
More controversial is Covid and vaccines. Now, looking back, the global evidence is pretty clear. Lockdowns saved lives and vaccines have not killed people. 
Again, the other side is about a conspiracy… what like a global one? The evidence is overwhelming.
The other ‘side’ to arguments against this… well understanding that is not really possible. 
But I definitely have strong opinions on those.
Other things, for example Democrat vs republican policies - I agree with you. You need to understand what the counter view is. 
Or medical systems. 
In both of these cases I have strong opinions too, mainly because I have looked into all sides ( and in case of health care system - used 3 different ones globally ), so in this I agree with you.
But here’s the big thing, in those case, my opinions are less strong than the first two. Maybe because there is actually an other side… >

I experience very severe executive (Broca's area) and sometimes interpretive (Wernicke's area) inhibition due to Lupus-triggered lack of blood flow to my neocortex primarily in fronto-temporal regions. The result is an impenetrable aphasia of the English language, and sometimes of concepts and ideas too when the brain fog is really bad.
Things that I could explain and debate in no uncertain terms, things I could speak passionately about, will disappear when I have a flareup. I'm usually having a flare up too, nowadays. However, due to past episodes of high functioning cognition, I've formed strong opinions on countless topics, like any person. If I were able minded, I could defend my positions eloquently and logically. 
I have strong feelings on those topics that are the result of being able to logically grapple with and discuss them. But I cannot defend those opinions most of the time. I certainly couldn't right now. I couldn't tell you why Trump is a symbol of hate, other than to state matter of factly that he is clearly a bad human who thinks and does bad things. I can't defend good people, I can't elaborate on why some food tastes bad and why some doesn't, and so on
I just have feelings about these things to go off of. Sure, those feelings are rooted in sound cognition. But not any cognition i have access to right now. Should I discard those opinions and their associated feelings because I'm usually "dumb"? That doesn't sound right to me. >

This is so meta lmao >

As to your homophobe suggestion… I think your logic is flawed… saying being gay is ok is a neutral position. No argument is being made… the people who say being gay is degenerate are the ones making an assertion and thus are the ones needing to make an argument, so it isn’t simply a “reverse the position” kind of scenario… nobody makes a decision about it being acceptable for somebody to be straight >

You’re technically right (the best kind) but it’s just as true to say that peodophilia is OK by default. Everything is ok by default until argued otherwise. It seems like there’s a responsibility to understand the arguments being made if they’re freely available. Obviously doing something to other people vs just being yourself is going to be different. >

I absolutely agree with you, and I admire the patience you display in the comments. I wish there were more people like you, from both sides, instead of this righteous cesspool that is reddit where only mainstream opinions deserve to be discussed. >

Oh yes yes yes!
Change my view too! >

Im the type to give my own opinion, be too lazy to explain why, then provide a link if there should be a source. If you don't want another opinion, then don't ask. If you want a conversation, then there should be consideration.
But if you want an opinion, and it differs from yours, you should use empathy and TRY to see from the other POV, so should the other party. 
If you look from their shoes and it doesn't fit your criteria, then don't change your opinion, if something makes sense, try to research and learn more, or listen to more of their opinion until certain parts make sense and others don't. >

I was in debate club.  You had to prepare for each side since you didn't know which side you were arguing until you got there. You should know both arguments.