Thumper's Rule

...and why it sucks.

GUESS WHAT.
I'M IN A BAD MOOD.

I've just been lectured by someone here on dA about the fact that my criticism of a certain policy was, in fact, "disrespectful of other people's opinions" and that i committed the terrible crime of "not recognizing the diversity of opinions."

Now, i want to point out that i wasn't being offensive, i wasn't being unreasonable, i was merely being decided. What happened was, i got blocked before i could contnue the discussuion and AFTER i had said that i was going to lave him be if he just asked. Really mature.

However, this isn't just about that one guy. I want this to be my answer to an ever-growing attitude which is apparently hardwired in many people's brains. What i can't stand about this person's argument, or lack thereof, was that he believed by criticizing someone else's position i wasn't recognizing the right to have different opnions. Let's take a closer loook at this statement.
By criticizing his argument, i wasn't recognizing it. This makes no sense. One who doesn't recognize that people have thir own opinions wouldn't try to convince them: they'd just impose what they want or leave the discussion. It's precisely because i recognized his right to have a different opinion that i was trying to convince him rationally.

The second major flaw with this style of reasoning is that criticizing an opinion is considered, by default, an attck towards it, and should be avoided. Hence, Thumper's Rule: "If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all."
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. Any opinion which is backed up by facts or sound seasoning will be, if anything, strenghtened by criticism and scrutiny, while any irrational opinion will be disproven and whoever held it will be shown a better alernative to their previous view. Rationality is the basis of any discussion: the golden rule should be "if you can't say something REASONABLE, say nothing at all."
This comes up time and time again in religious discussions where religious people shield themselves behind the golden armor of "it's just my OPINION that god exists." Sorry, but this makes no sense. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant unless you have any way of providing any kind of evidence that it's true. It would be equivalent to imprison a person judged innocent just because you don't want to offend the opinion of those who accused him.
In conclusion, if you don't agree with me, BY ALL MEANS, respond- just be ready to discuss and back up any claim you make.