comment: >
  
  Based on what you are saying, I think you could make an argument saying that you are morally right about everything. But the issue going beyond that is lack of knowledge. Your moral motivation for wanting to switch to drug decriminalization is a good one, what if I told you that ever since Prohibition, the United States has had lower drinking rates. Would you then consider there might be benefits with criminalization? Now, personally, I still think that decriminalization is the right way to go. But my point is that you don't know what you don't know, so if your motivation, and even your logic, may be correct, but that doesn't mean your argument is.
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? >
  
  "Kinda knowing" is absolutely not an "I'm right" scenario >
  
  Generally people who say they are pro-science know nothing about science. You can’t be pro-science, it’s not an ideology of that sort. Scientists are not ‘pro-science’, there are no eternally held positions in science, nor are there supposed to be any dogmatic positions that cannot be challenged. Someone who was ‘pro-science’ 100 years ago would not be by today’s standards.
  The closest approximation to a truly pro-science position is the following claim: I think what I can observe and measure does indeed happen and I can write it down. >
  
  There are people out there who if you show them a controlled study will say it doesn't matter. So in a way you can be pro or against science. >
  
  That is true. Though it is still ‘scientific’ to challenge a study (not that outright dismissing something is a challenge). It happens all the time, hence why studies are replicable. Part of why you cannot be ‘pro-science’ is because taking a static position is the antithesis of science. There is nothing you cannot question and challenge. Nothing you are supposed to think. It’s similar to how you cannot be pro-philosophy, that doesn’t really mean anything outside of its method. >
  
  It's cool that you know about the Dunning-Kruger effect, but do you know what cognitive dissonance is?
  
  I'm right about everything
  I know I can't be right about everything
  only makes me more correct
  
  So which is it? Are you or aren't you right about everything? Everything you've listed as "specifics" are completely subjective. They may make life (or one aspect of life) better for some people, but they may make life (or one aspect) worse for others. Who are you to decide which group of people deserves better or worse? Are you some sort of intellectual deity who has all the answers society could ever ask for, and anyone who doesn't have the same views as you is just wrong? Is the problem with the world that we just haven't started listening to you yet?
  Surely you can't have such an inflated opinion of yourself that you think you're right about every intellectual subject. >
  
  I think I'm correct, so I'm asking where I might be wrong. I don't think I said anything crazy there. I just stated it strong for this sub reddit. >
  
  Like other people have pointed out of course we think we're right about everything, we wouldn't hold beliefs if we didn't. But it kind of does seem you have just taken the most socially acceptable milquetoast values within our current society and decided they're completely right. You've also not really started all that much about what you actually believe.
  ​
  Atheist is relatively specific but good luck convincing someone of anything to do with religion over the internet it's also more or less philosophically incompatible with your next point of moral realism but it depends how you twist each definition. 
  ​
  Pro choice can mean a bunch of different things, it can mean the default stance in western countries of "abortions should be allowed up to a certain point" or it could mean "unrestricted abortion until birth/possibly slightly after birth" or if you live somewhere like the UK outside of NI it could mean in favor of forced abortions for the mentally incapable.  
  ​
  Pro LGBT can also mean a lot of different things, it could mean you're in favour of legal gender recognition for transgender people, some general discrimination protections and gay marriage (which again are just kind of the default stances in modern society) or it could mean wishing to deconstruct gender and heterosexuality given that you said LGBT not LGBTQIA+ I'm guessing the former but who knows.
  ​
  Pro drug decriminalization and legalization again means almost nothing, which drugs are legal and which are restricted varies by country but there's no country (at least I do not think so) which bans all forms of drugs or has them all legal. I'm guessing you're not advocating the sale of krokodil in schools but also don't want to restrict your opinions to just weed. But again not specific enough to really address.
  ​
  Pro euthanesia again doesn't mean much. Presumably you want to let people choose to kill themselves (idk where that moral realism went) but it could mean a lot of things, passive euthanesia is a relatively uncontested norm but active euthanesia is not and could extend as far to killing people without their consent depending how extreme your view is. But again not specific enough. 
  ​
  More democratic processes are also vague, I'm unconvinced by PR or ranked choice but given you aren't sure yourself it doesn't mean much.
  ​
  Pro worker cooperatives means nothing again. You could wish to replace the entire economy with coops or you could just like their existence. One opinion is activelly socialist the other is held by just about everyone on the western political spectrum from the most conservative to the most progressive non socialist.
  ​
  And modern capitalism being flawed but better than feudalism is again almost meaningless because almost everyone agrees.
  ​
  Like, I'm not sure you even really have a point to dispute here. In order to actually really convince someone of something you need to know what they believe not a bunch of generalities. >
  
  
  Atheist is relatively specific but good luck convincing someone of anything to do with religion over the internet it's also more or less philosophically incompatible with your next point of moral realism but it depends how you twist each definition.
  
  I used to be Christian and changed to atheist, partly from online reasoning. Moral realism and atheism aren't incompatible. As far as I know, the largest group of modern philosophers are atheist, and are moral realists. There was a survey. 
  Pro-choice: Pro-choice until birth, but practically it might not be possible or super morally great by the end. 
  LGBT: Gay marriage. For trans people, informed consent healthcare, and full legal recognition and protection within 3 months, is probably good. 
  Drugs: Probably legalize weed, LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy. Decriminalize and discourage other drugs. Treat as medical issues.  
  Euthanasia: Active euthanasia. I'm not sure why think moral realism wouldn't support bodily autonomy here. 
  Democracy: I mentioned both PR and ranked choice because PR would work better for a parliament or house of reps, but perhaps ranked voting for President. 
  Worker Coops: Probably something like worker coops for all or most companies long term. Small business maybe not. And some thing could be run by the government for a while. >
  
  
  For trans people, informed consent healthcare, and full legal recognition and protection within 3 months, is probably good
  
  At what age? 8? 12? 60?
  
  Probably legalize weed
  
  Probably? How can you ever be right or wrong if you sit on the fence? >
  
  I think your last post was removed not because you didn't hit 500+ characters, but because you didn't explain why you think you're right about everything, you just gave a list of things you think you're right about. 
  You didn't fix the problem in this post. Without know why you think you think you're right about everything, it's hard to really argue specifics.
  This is also such an unwieldy laundry list of gigantic societal issues that it makes debate difficult, if not impossible. You'd get more mileage out of making a post out of one specific issue (worker cooperatives, euthanasia, etc) than just saying "Here's a list of a bazillion random things, change my view on all of them." >
  
  those are minor issues,  how do you stand on the important ones like donuts or bagels.
  ​
  also you can shorten your view to i'm an idealist since many of those stances don't work in the real world, they are better that what we currently have, but can't be employed because history exists and people have a vested interest in the current Status Que >
  
  Our current system would be considered idealist by previous civilisations, so do you believe that the current way the world work doesn't exist? 
  If you do believe it exists then you believe ideas viewed as idealist are possible.
  Unless you want to challenge the idea that the status quo wouldn't be considered idealist by previous people. Which seems unlikely. >
  
  Why do you believe our current system would be considered idealist by previous civilizations? What civilizations and what evidence do you have for that claim? Many might see our current society as being evil and hedonistic, not at all idealistic. You seem to be wrong about that. >
  
  Maybe, but I might be wrong that the sun will rise tomorrow too. 
  Much of our society is beyond comprehension of past people. I want genuine arguments. >
  
  
  Maybe, but I might be wrong that the sun will rise tomorrow too. 
  I want genuine arguments.
  
  You are getting genuine arguments, you aren't giving genuine responses. >
  
  You're somewhere on the spectrum, right? >
  
  I don't think so. I've been told I empathise with people than average, and I have friends that are, and I'm not like them in the ways theirs shows. But who knows. >
  
  I have a friend on the spectrum who frequently claims she is never wrong about anything. That's why I asked. That said, no one is right all the time. It's impossible to always be right in a chaotic world with an unknown future. >
  
  It's okay, I see why you'd ask that. If it was in person I'd just ask someone what they thought I was wrong about. But here you have to take a hard position. >
  
  I don't think so. I've been told I empathise with people than average, and I have friends that are, and I'm not like them in the ways theirs shows. But who knows. >
  
  
  If I don’t know, then I’d say I don’t know, and that would be correct.
  
  “The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.” Socrates >
  
  
  I know I can't be right about everything
  
  Do you think you are right about this?
  If you are right, then it means you are not right about everything. If not, then that also means you are not right about everything.
  Also, where do you stand on Russia/Ukraine? What about your sexuality?
  And what do you consider "the right direction"
  Would it be possible for you to go in an incorrect direction? What direction would that be? >
  
  I think I know your point. But isn't that the least interesting way, rather trying to show a specific thing is wrong or a bad idea? >
  
  Instead of answering a question with a question why not answer the questions? >
  
  I didn't see most of your questions because you replied before you edited it. That's fine. 
  Russia/Ukraine: Arm Ukraine
  I'm not sure how what your sexuality is can be right or wrong. I'd say unsure or openminded. 
  The right direction: To take an extreme example. If you lived in a slave nation, the right direction would be limit slavery, but no slavery would be better. Killing all people of a certain race would be the wrong direction. >
  
  
  Russia/Ukraine: Arm Ukraine
  
  Would your community in r/greenandpleasant agree with you there?
  
  I'm not sure how what your sexuality is can be right or wrong. I'd say unsure or openminded.
  
  So in this topic you agree that you are not right because you cannot be right?
  
  To take an extreme example
  
  Why would you take an extreme example? We're talking about you and your life. The right direction in your life, like you talk about in your OP. In what way could you take your life in a direction that was not "correct"? >
  
  
  Would your community in r/greenandpleasant agree with you there?
  
  Damn, their mine? Can tell them I'm their Empress? I have no idea if they agree. 
  
  So in this topic you agree that you are not right because you cannot be right?
  
  It's not a right or wrong things. Like are pizza or burgers better. 
  
  Why would you take an extreme example? 
  
  Because it's easier to agree one something everyone agrees is wrong.
  
  We're talking about you and your life. The right direction in your life, like you talk about in your OP. In what way could you take your life in a direction that was not "correct"?
  
  I used to be a Christian, and got more conservative a while. That was wrong.
  I became more anti-abortion and anti-evolution a while. That was wrong. >
  
  
  And I mean intellectually correct
  
  Could you elaborate what you mean with this? How do you gauge "correctness"? >
  
  This states a position but no elaboration on any points to any depth. I hope mods remove this post because it feels like it violates the whole point of the 500+ word count. >
  
  i hate the phrase "dunning kruger effect" its just socrates  
  the more likely that you think you're right about everything, the less likely you are  
  the more your point of view has a tendency to evolve over time, the more you are open to changing it, and therefore the closer to being right you will be >
  
  Okay, unless you're arguing that your judgment is just intrinsically superior to other people's somehow (and I mean I can pretty much assure you it's not), pick a specific topic, lay our your reasoning for that topic, and then go from there. Otherwise you're just asking someone to "debate me on anything you might disagree with" and that's just... super unproductive. This is CMV, not "debate a liberal." >
  
  Well most the stuff you listed is subjective in the big picture and dosen't really fall into a realm of "right or wrong". If anything, it just sounds like you're following the social norms that are most accepted - at this time, which again, isn't generally right or wrong....
  But to keep in line with the post, at the end of the day, people can offer solid evidence that shows 
  you're wrong. But if you don't accept it, you don't accept it. Nothing we can do about it really. You just have to be willing to actually accept that you might be wrong. Then go find some solid counterarguments and examine your response to it.