Indeed I did, Parson Brad.
Trump teases a 28’ run, we should let him!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Indeed I did, Parson Brad.
Is it true that "opinions always differ"?
No. The claim “opinions always differ” is false as an absolute statement.
People routinely hold the same opinions. Shared views are common on factual matters (once settled), practical judgments, moral intuitions, aesthetic preferences, and group identities. Consensus is not rare; it is the ordinary background against which disagreement stands out.
People often say “opinions differ” (or variants) as a conversational softener: to acknowledge that reasonable people can land in different places, to end an unproductive argument, or to signal that a question is not purely factual. Used that way it is usually harmless. Turned into the stronger claim that opinions always differ, it becomes a conversation-stopper that pretends disagreement is inevitable and therefore immune to evidence or argument. That is not accurate.
In short: opinions frequently overlap and frequently diverge. The absolute version is simply not true.
grok.com
No. The claim “opinions always differ” is false as an absolute statement.
People routinely hold the same opinions. Shared views are common on factual matters (once settled), practical judgments, moral intuitions, aesthetic preferences, and group identities. Consensus is not rare; it is the ordinary background against which disagreement stands out.
Why the absolute claim fails
- Agreement is observable and measurable. Large majorities can and do converge on the same position: “the Earth is roughly spherical,” “deliberate cruelty to children is wrong,” “fire is hot,” “this particular restaurant is good,” or “this policy is preferable to the alternatives.” Polls, markets, scientific literatures, and everyday conversation all show overlapping opinions far more often than total divergence.
- Logical and empirical absurdity. If opinions always differed, no two people could ever share a preference, belief, or evaluation. That would make conversation, contracts, teams, political coalitions, scientific communities, and families impossible. They are not impossible.
- Disagreement is real but partial. Opinions can differ, sometimes sharply and persistently. That is different from claiming they must differ in every case. The interesting questions are when, why, and how much they diverge—not a blanket assertion that divergence is universal.
Common sources of the phrase
People often say “opinions differ” (or variants) as a conversational softener: to acknowledge that reasonable people can land in different places, to end an unproductive argument, or to signal that a question is not purely factual. Used that way it is usually harmless. Turned into the stronger claim that opinions always differ, it becomes a conversation-stopper that pretends disagreement is inevitable and therefore immune to evidence or argument. That is not accurate.
In short: opinions frequently overlap and frequently diverge. The absolute version is simply not true.
Opinions Often Overlap, Not Always Differ | Shared Grok Conversation
Is it true that "opinions always differ"?
grok.com
Yup, Tiggywinkle.
Poor Parson Brad. Reduced to copying me and @christiefan915, and managing to mispell her pet name for my humble self into the bargain.
Is mine is the only opinion I'm qualified to express without attributing by inference an alignment with the shared opinions of unspecified others?
Yes.
Your own opinion is the only one you are fully and directly qualified to express, without any inference that you speak for, agree with, or align with the views of unspecified others.
When you state “I think X” or “In my view, Y,” you are reporting something to which you have privileged, first-person access. No further attribution is required, and no collective endorsement is implied.
The moment the claim shifts to “we think,” “people believe,” “the consensus is,” “our side holds,” or any similar formulation that points to an undefined group, you are no longer merely reporting your own stance.
That attribution is an inference (or sometimes a projection). It requires evidence, specification of the group, or explicit qualification if you want to avoid the charge of speaking for people who have not authorized you to do so.
So the short answer is: yes—your own opinion is the only one you can express with full qualification and zero necessary inference about the shared views of people you have not identified. Everything else carries an extra layer of justification.
Yes.
Your own opinion is the only one you are fully and directly qualified to express, without any inference that you speak for, agree with, or align with the views of unspecified others.
When you state “I think X” or “In my view, Y,” you are reporting something to which you have privileged, first-person access. No further attribution is required, and no collective endorsement is implied.
The moment the claim shifts to “we think,” “people believe,” “the consensus is,” “our side holds,” or any similar formulation that points to an undefined group, you are no longer merely reporting your own stance.
That attribution is an inference (or sometimes a projection). It requires evidence, specification of the group, or explicit qualification if you want to avoid the charge of speaking for people who have not authorized you to do so.
So the short answer is: yes—your own opinion is the only one you can express with full qualification and zero necessary inference about the shared views of people you have not identified. Everything else carries an extra layer of justification.
Why, yes, my dear sweety-paws. I am so very 'umble.
Stop, you sound like Uriah Heep.
