I understand loyalty, but I don't understand how one should be expected to be "loyal" in opinions. Why is it viewed as a sign of disloyalty etc if you side with a stranger's point of view if that point of view is also your own or close to it. Going by this loyalty logic, your close one should then take your point of view, but they don't, do they?
I mean, if it's really such a big deal to someone that I support them no matter what... don't think we'd be in too much contact... but if we were, I would most likely just stay out of it.
Luckily for me, I don't have any issues with this sort of thing nowadays, but back when I lived with my parents, it used to be an issue in the parent vs "stranger" context.
Perhaps we're also thinking of different scenarios. You wouldn't suddenly start arguing that, for example, astrology has something going for it just because your friend believes so.
I think we are thinking of different scenarios. I'm more thinking or social conflicts more than matters of opinion. It all depends on context and I'm having trouble verbalizing exactly where I'd think what I'm saying would and wouldn't apply.
The simplest way I can think to describe it is to say I feel a bias towards people I feel loyalty towards. And so there are circumstances where I might side with someone I'm loyal too but disagree with, or not side against them, where if I were being completely neutral too all sides I wouldn't.
For the astrology example, well I'm particularly unimpressed for lack of a more polite word with astrology, so I probably wouldn't side with a friend I felt loyalty towards over their belief in astrology over someone who agrees with me that it seems kinda BS. But, I might well stay out of it all together out of loyalty. Whereas if I didn't feel loyalty to one but not the other I'd decide it purely based on my opinion on the subject.
I suppose what it comes down to is I'm saying I can appreciate and relate to the thinking that you should stick up for your friends and family sometimes even when you know they're wrong. But of course there are limits, so it's not so much that I'm saying that loyalty wins every time, just that it does have importance to me. I wouldn't just base every situation and how I handle it on my opinion by itself with no consideration to the social side of the discussion.
In terms of the example I gave with my BF, in those situations it was questions like, if your friend and a someone you don't know very well get into an argument, would you go purely on the merits of the argument or would you be biased by the friendship and which is the correct choice?
Another one would be if it were a friend of mine and him in an argument or a friend of his and me. In which case I would almost always back him up in public even if I agreed with the friend in private. And I'd have similar expectations of him.
I'm not sure exactly where the line is, when I'd let loyalty influence the stand I take and when I wouldn't.
But regardless of where the line is, I'm only talking about how you act publicly. Even if for example a friend of mine and my bf got into an argument about something for example, while I'd always side with him, I'd still tell him in private what I really think and appeal to him to make things right.
Hopefully that makes what I'm talking about a little clearer.
Another important difference is what kind of group we are talking about. While there are times I value group loyalty, I wouldn't consider what it sounds like the OP is talking about to be one of those times.
So say the culture of your country is hostile towards say, immigrants. I think you should speak up for what you believe in. I'm talking about individual loyalties not collective loyalties such as loyalty to country or something.
All I'm getting at is that while I'd normally be inclined to say you should speak up for what you really believe in, I do think there are exceptions where a greater good is served by being more socially supportive than coldly honest.
One reason I'm probably having trouble getting across what I'm talking about is because I find this discussion itself a bit ambiguous.