What I have actually said about this is that opinion can mean two different things (at the very least). Both of these statements can be true, depending on how you personally think of the word -- what definition you have of "opinion" in your head:

Opinions can be wrong, Zeddy.

Opinions are different for each person and can't be wrong, they are simply what the person likes and doesn't like

The first statement is using the word "opinion" in a different way than the second opinions. The two different words are spelled the same, and many people don't know the difference, but the difference is there.

But all of this seems a bit tangential anyways - the original quote was:

Well, setting the new colors aside, I think the 2009 sets stink. They follow the same humanoid design, no new torso/leg pieces; just the same ones from 4 years ago being used, and barely any new pieces save for the weapons and mask.

 

And nobody try to argue please, this is my opinion and it's not going to change.

I think what TtW was trying to point out was that this person's tastes aren't going to change, but it might be too early to say that there's no new pieces, etc. And also, even personal taste can change -- things can grow on us if we let them. Which is probably a good thing, that we might seriously want to consider not resisting, as it will make us happier.

Basically, I have found that it is unwise to ever predict whether your own opinion will ever change or not. Regardless of what kind of opinion you're talking about. Instead, try to embrace an open mind.

But maybe that is just me.

To analyze your points themselves:

That's a belief, not an opinion.

A belief is that the sky is green. An opinion is that the sky is pretty.

That's one way to use those words. Other people might use them differently. My point has NEVER been that we should say "my definition of a word is absolute and yours isn't". My point was, in fact, that confusion of definitions is what is causing most apparent disagreement.

It goes back to the old adage that 90% (or whatever) of disagreements are simply caused by people failing to define how they are using their terms. Once they do, they usually find that when it comes to the actual concepts behind the terms they're using, they agree a lot more than they thought.

 

You can follow Bonesiii's guidelines on this, but I respectfully disagree with his interpretation of the word "opinion."

Again, what I was bringing out in that blog entry was the logical aspects of the term -- namely, that it can mean either "taste-opinion", an statement of your own likes and dislikes, OR "thought-opinion" that is more like a theory about something objective that has nothing to do with your own preferences. It's not my interpretation, it's simply the logical aspects of the term's various meanings. Not invented by me -- was discovered by logicians a long time ago, heh.

Nor am I saying the word should only mean what I was talking about in there -- in fact, I prefer to avoid the word in debates since it is so confused.

His reasoning is based on people stating their opinions to be: "LEGO should do [this]."

And yes, it is their opinion, but keep in mind that they're not stating what LEGO should do [this] for. If I said "The world should be free of intolerance," would that be a provable/disprovable statement? It wouldn't.

It might, if you could point to reasons that would make it so or not and analyze from there. (A discussion we can't have here.)

It would be an opinion. It's impossible to assign a truth-value to "The world should be free of intolerance."

So say you, but that is your own... opinion, belief, whatever. Many things are boldly declared impossible that turn out to be quite possible.

If, on the other hand, the person said "LEGO should do this to sell better," that would include a cause as well as an effect, and that could be researched and determined definitively. That would be a belief or hypothesis, which could be tested and determined as either true or false. It's not an opinion.

Not by the way you're defining it, but I think the issue here is that different people are defining it different ways. BTW, I've talked to people who would classify hypothesis and belief as being very different. Not that I agree with them, but just for the record.

IMO.

Well of course I'm not trying to establish my own rigid definition for it, because a rigid definition is exactly what I'm against. Other people seem to follow your own perfectly reasonable guidelines far too strictly, though, and they attempt to correct people when they're not in error in the first place, as in the above quote. I'm just irritated with it when people do that.

Ultimately the definition I gave is how I personally prefer to use the terms, but either yours or mine is correct technically and I want to see them both used. I've just wished for a while now that people would simply read for the context of the words used rather than apply one definition to everything. Basically that conversation consisted of the first guy saying "I don't like the sets" and the second guy responding with "Your opinion is wrong." In the context of the first guy's statement, though, he made it perfectly clear that he was using "opinion" to mean "personal taste," which is a perfectly acceptable usage.

When people oversimplify the definition of such a broad word (And I don't mean that you did this- I mean that people seem to have misunderstood your efforts to clarify things), I notice that a lot of the time they'll just throw a bunch of needless criticism at people's posts when they disagree with them, and think that they're backed up by The Great Bonesiii.

Well of course I'm not trying to establish my own rigid definition for it, because a rigid definition is exactly what I'm against. Other people seem to follow your own perfectly reasonable guidelines far too strictly, though, and they attempt to correct people when they're not in error in the first place, as in the above quote. I'm just irritated with it when people do that.

I know, as we've discussed before, but I don't believe in being irritated at it. It's human nature. Instead, I just prefer to work to clarify it when I can.

Similarly, I could easily fall to the temptation to be irrated at complainers and "anti-complainers" flaming each other or getting close to it because they aren't seeing that respect of each other's different tastes is vital. But I don't allow myself to be irritated at them anymore because:

1) It's human nature, that's reality, and me being annoyed at it makes as little sense as complainers being annoyed at LEGO not being able to please everyone -- another reality that is out of our control.

2) It is counterproductive. People don't respond well to people being annoyed at them.

Believe me, I've learned this the hard way through the trial by fire that is BZPower debates and real life, so I'm not claiming innocence here. But I am claiming experience, and being annoyed is just pointless. But perfectly understandable, too.

So I try to keep in these things when I encounter ignorance, miscommunication, confusion, etc.:

1) It is to be expected.

2) It is not a horrible crime to be punished, but instead an understandable mistake that we should help others to see, so that they can improve.

3) It is to be addressed kindly and with an attitude of helpfulness.

4) See through the specific words they're using, if you can, and focus on what they meant to say (while perhaps giving your own advice as to clearer ways to say it in the future, and if you are not sure, DO NOT assume; instead, simply politely ask what they meant).

5) You have to be sincere. None of the above works if you fake it. So maybe we all have to truly learn these lessons the hard way before we can become sincere.

Dang, that went long lol.

Ultimately the definition I gave is how I personally prefer to use the terms, but either yours or mine is correct technically and I want to see them both used. I've just wished for a while now that people would simply read for the context of the words used rather than apply one definition to everything.

I agree wholeheartedly, and for the record, you're a big reason I now believe that. Well, always have, but I admit I didn't use to follow that as much as I should have.

Basically that conversation consisted of the first guy saying "I don't like the sets" and the second guy responding with "Your opinion is wrong."

Basically, but not fully, and I'm saying it looked like the second guy was pointing out that some details like the amounts of new pieces may have been innaccurate. But you'd have to ask TtW what he meant, I guess.

In the context of the first guy's statement, though, he made it perfectly clear that he was using "opinion" to mean "personal taste," which is a perfectly acceptable usage.

I'm not sure that was clear -- it sounded like he might not have given the sets a fair lookover yet, though. Perhaps if he had, he would actually find his personal tastes telling him that he likes it a little more than he initially thought. Or perhaps not.

When people oversimplify the definition of such a broad word (And I don't mean that you did this- I mean that people seem to have misunderstood your efforts to clarify things), I notice that a lot of the time they'll just throw a bunch of needless criticism at people's posts when they disagree with them, and think that they're backed up by The Great Bonesiii.

Well, I agree. But of course I have always been the first and loudest to back up everybody's right to like and dislike whatever they do. I'm the guy that, as far as I know, coined the phrase "Taste Discrimination" in the same vein as racial, etc. discrimination, after all.