3 ms·

Counters to your counters: >1) Does a homosexual couple with no knowledge of US marriage law not have a valid opinion on whether they should be allowed to marr

Counters to your counters: >1) Does a homosexual couple with no knowledge of US marriage law not have a valid opinion on whether they should be allowed to marry? No, that couple doesn't have a valid opinion. How could they? They don't understand that marriage is in the United States. That conceptualization of "togetherness" as a couple doesn't exist in their minds. The threshold at which they can form a valid opinion is, therefore, at the entry-level of understanding United States marriage laws. >2)Did poorly educated blacks or women need training in the subtleties of constitutional law before they could have a valid opinion on universal suffrage? Depends on what you mean by "training" - they need to understand what suffrage is, so in that sense, yes, they do need training. This is the threshold for having a valid opinion. Here are concrete counter-examples to your counter-examples: 1) If a gay couple were asked if they wanted the right to be married without first being told the sociological context and culture of marriage in the United States, and without understanding the legal ramifications of being married, their opinion would be null and void - just noise. They don't know what they're agreeing/disagreeing with. 2) If you asked women if they'd like the ability to vote, and they said yes, but couldn't answer you when you asked them what a democratic republic is, or how representation works in the United States, their opinions would be meaningless. It would be equivalent to pathos-driven desire to be able to do something - ultimately, a useless opinion. Understand - I'm not being pedantic. Your examples may show a somewhat low threshold for meaningful opinions, but the parent is correct in that you need some threshold for every opinion.

_dps 13y ago
I was tempted not to reply because I think we're just arguing over the many possible definitions of the word "valid", and that can quickly become uninteresting. Here's a stab at not being too much of a hair-splitter. In a nutshell, it sounds like your definition of "valid" (and parent's) refer to some frame of objectively true facts and a commonly accepted value system. I agree that one would have to take such a definition in order to find intellectual value in a person's opinions on political matters. My definition of validity (in the context of the previous comment) has to do with recognizing subjective individual value systems that must occasionally be trampled upon in order to have a functioning state. By their nature, political institutions touch your life whether you want them to do so or not. So my view is that all people affected by a political institution have valid opinions on the actions of said institution, even if those opinions are not particularly well informed or even logical. If an institution forces something into (or out of) your life, I take the position that you have a valid voice with which to support or oppose that action, even if I might find that support or opposition to be unpersuasive from a logical or evidentiary frame of reference. To close the loop of example/counter-example, I think your two counter-counter-examples demonstrate opinions of low intellectual validity, as they do not stem from a body of knowledge. However, I think they are fully politically valid, because I don't see any way to have a politically legitimate institution while invalidating the opinions of those whose individual values are violated by its actions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Gormo 13y ago
> They don't understand that marriage is in the United States. That conceptualization of "togetherness" as a couple doesn't exist in their minds. Can you explain what these sentences mean in clearer language? If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I think you may have it precisely backwards. Those individuals are the only credible experts on the particularities of their relationship, which has little, if anything, to do with the United States; from their perspective, it's the current legal status quo that lacks validity. (nb: there aren't actually "United States marriage laws" - the recent attempt to assert federal influence over the legal definition of marriage was ruled unconstitutional.) Politics is about "ought", not "is", and understanding the nuances of established policy isn't a necessary precondition for proposing replacing it with some other policy.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  You're right to say that the gay couple would be credible experts on their own relationship. The problem is that people tend to confuse their own personal experience with broader expertise about a subject. For example, the gay couple would not necessarily be credible experts on all, or even most, gay relationships. Membership in a group doesn't qualify us to speak on behalf of all the group's members; the same is true for issues concerning race, gender, etc. In other words, everyone is entitled to strong opinions based on personal experience — the "ought" part, as you put it — but they should be careful not to presume that others share their views and experiences.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    > For example, the gay couple would not necessarily be credible experts on all, or even most, gay relationships. So? > Membership in a group doesn't qualify us to speak on behalf of all the group's members The boundaries of groups are usually pretty arbitrary in the first place. No one is ever speaking on behalf of anyone else, unless that someone else explicitly invited them to do so. When people express their opinions, they're expressing their opinions, so it's likewise an error to interpret one party's opinions as necessarily being those of anyone else. I agree that no one should presume to speak for others, but this has nothing to do with the notion I'm arguing against here, that being that people's political views must somehow be validated by data in order to be credible.
MaysonL 13y ago
Ask the same questions similarly of a hetero couple and a white male property owner, and consider the meaningfulness of their opinions.

_dps 13y ago

I was tempted not to reply because I think we're just arguing over the many possible definitions of the word "valid", and that can quickly become uninteresting. Here's a stab at not being too much of a hair-splitter. In a nutshell, it sounds like your definition of "valid" (and parent's) refer to some frame of objectively true facts and a commonly accepted value system. I agree that one would have to take such a definition in order to find intellectual value in a person's opinions on political matters. My definition of validity (in the context of the previous comment) has to do with recognizing subjective individual value systems that must occasionally be trampled upon in order to have a functioning state. By their nature, political institutions touch your life whether you want them to do so or not. So my view is that all people affected by a political institution have valid opinions on the actions of said institution, even if those opinions are not particularly well informed or even logical. If an institution forces something into (or out of) your life, I take the position that you have a valid voice with which to support or oppose that action, even if I might find that support or opposition to be unpersuasive from a logical or evidentiary frame of reference. To close the loop of example/counter-example, I think your two counter-counter-examples demonstrate opinions of low intellectual validity, as they do not stem from a body of knowledge. However, I think they are fully politically valid, because I don't see any way to have a politically legitimate institution while invalidating the opinions of those whose individual values are violated by its actions.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Gormo 13y ago

> They don't understand that marriage is in the United States. That conceptualization of "togetherness" as a couple doesn't exist in their minds. Can you explain what these sentences mean in clearer language? If you're saying what I think you're saying, then I think you may have it precisely backwards. Those individuals are the only credible experts on the particularities of their relationship, which has little, if anything, to do with the United States; from their perspective, it's the current legal status quo that lacks validity. (nb: there aren't actually "United States marriage laws" - the recent attempt to assert federal influence over the legal definition of marriage was ruled unconstitutional.) Politics is about "ought", not "is", and understanding the nuances of established policy isn't a necessary precondition for proposing replacing it with some other policy.

hawkharris 13y ago
You're right to say that the gay couple would be credible experts on their own relationship. The problem is that people tend to confuse their own personal experience with broader expertise about a subject. For example, the gay couple would not necessarily be credible experts on all, or even most, gay relationships. Membership in a group doesn't qualify us to speak on behalf of all the group's members; the same is true for issues concerning race, gender, etc. In other words, everyone is entitled to strong opinions based on personal experience — the "ought" part, as you put it — but they should be careful not to presume that others share their views and experiences.
- Gormo 13y ago
  > For example, the gay couple would not necessarily be credible experts on all, or even most, gay relationships. So? > Membership in a group doesn't qualify us to speak on behalf of all the group's members The boundaries of groups are usually pretty arbitrary in the first place. No one is ever speaking on behalf of anyone else, unless that someone else explicitly invited them to do so. When people express their opinions, they're expressing their opinions, so it's likewise an error to interpret one party's opinions as necessarily being those of anyone else. I agree that no one should presume to speak for others, but this has nothing to do with the notion I'm arguing against here, that being that people's political views must somehow be validated by data in order to be credible.

MaysonL 13y ago

Ask the same questions similarly of a hetero couple and a white male property owner, and consider the meaningfulness of their opinions.