comment: >
  
  "Kinda knowing" is absolutely not an "I'm right" scenario
context: To /u/Gravatona, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
  In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
  
  Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
  Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
  Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
  Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
  
  Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track.  Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. >
  
  Everyone believes all their beliefs are correct. A person can't hold a belief they know to be wrong...
  What even is this post? >
  
  Okay, my point is that I'm probably wrong about something, so where am I wrong. But on this subreddit you have to present a point of view to be challenged. >
  
  You haven't presented enough of your viewpoints for anyone to adequately challenge them.
  Eg. "I'm pro drug decriminalization" - drug decriminalization can take infinite forms. Decriminalizing? Or Legalization? How, why, by what policy, phased or not, what to do about previous convicts, what to do about those currently in the legal system, is selling legalized, if so how, how does one get a permit to sell drugs for human consumption, is there an age limit/minimum age, does that vary by drug, what about drugs that can be used to kill other people easily eg. Fentanyl, and so on.
  It's just impossible to argue with a statement like "I'm pro drug legalization" because it's too complicated. You could get 1000 people who are 'in favor of drug legalization' in a room and each of them will have an entirely different set of answers to the who/what/when/where/why about it. >
  
  Sure, but if you think it's complicated then you probably think it's possible and good in some format.
  If someone says they are in favour of burning witches, or slavery, I'm not asking them for their detailed policy before I disagree.
  If everyone agrees I'm broadly correct about everything and we just need to hammer out the details, I'd say that's broadly a win for me. >
  
  
  If everyone agrees I'm broadly correct about everything and we just need to hammer out the details, I'd say that's broadly a win for me.
  
  No one has ever disagreed with you about anything? Not even brexit? Palestine? >
  
  Here's you arguing that abortion should be allowed for any reason at any week into the pregnancy
  Here's you arguing 90-99% of people are stupid
  Here's you arguing that Capitalism will be viewed as the worst economic system in human history
  Now why would you post these views, argue a bit and then delete every single one if you're "right about everything"? >
  
  You're either really egotistical or completely clueless.
  Ever fucked up? Gotten angry? Had a bad day, took it out on someone? Made a friend feel shitty?
  If you've done any of those things, at some point of the situation you were wrong. >
  
  I thought I said in my post that I mean intellectually, not morally perfect. >
  
  Does that not prove you aren't right about everything? >
  
  
  Specifically: Atheist, moral realism, pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro drug decriminalisation and legalisation, pro euthanasia, more democratic processes (like proportional representation or ranked choice voting) are better than first past the post, pro worker cooperatives. Modern capitalism is better than Feudalism, but doesn't live up to the values of liberty, equality, and democracy.
  
  You're not right about these things because these are opinions not facts. Opinions do not have a truth table you can point to that determines their implication true or false. >
  
  Are you a nihilist or just for this post? >
  
  I am an absurdist but that is irrelevant. One cannot have correct opinions because opinions cannot have the quality of being either true or false. >
  
  Does it matter if you're an absurdist? >
  
  And humble, too!
  The intellectually correct position is the staple quote paraphrasing Socrates: that true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. You're claiming it for yourself by admitting the few things you haven't already formed fixed opinions on, but the virtue the quote describes is recognizing the potential flaws and faults in the things you believe you know already.
  It's easy to say "oh I don't know that," but you ought to be able to say "I believe this, but I could be wrong and would like to learn more." >
  
  This post is saying what you're asking me to say in other words. I'm asking to be challenged because I might be wrong... but I can't see it because that's how positions work.
  So until my opinion changes, I think I'm right about what I think I'm right about. But I want to be challenged and changed when wrong. >
  
  
  I'm asking to be challenged because I might be wrong 
  
  There is absolutely no way that you aren't wrong at some point and on some level. Humans are messy and fall victim to biases whether they realise it or not. They are a product of their environment (and genetics obviously). So you're "right" on plenty of aspects within your own culture, not necessarily in another.
  It absolutely is a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, whether you admit it or not. By definition you overestimate your own abilities. >
  
  You're certainly not right about how /r/changemyview works.  Since that's at least one thing you're wrong about, you are therefore not right about everything. >
  
  Or I kinda know how it works, but I'm talking about this because I thought it would be fun?