3 ms·

> 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 expla

by 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.
  - hawkharris 13y ago
    No one is ever speaking on behalf of anyone else, unless that someone else explicitly invited them to do so. I beg to differ. In fact, it's very common for people to extrapolate based on their own experiences and speak for others whom they see as being in the same situation, whether the situation has to do with race, economic status or sexual orientation. Therefore, if people are arguing for a policy that affects many people, not just themselves, their proposal should be backed by some expertise other than just personal opinion.
    - Gormo 13y ago
      > it's very common for people to extrapolate based on their own experiences and speak for others No; it's very common for people to presume to extrapolate based on their own experiences, and to presume to speak for others. But they're not actually speaking for others.

by Gormo 13y ago

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.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  No one is ever speaking on behalf of anyone else, unless that someone else explicitly invited them to do so. I beg to differ. In fact, it's very common for people to extrapolate based on their own experiences and speak for others whom they see as being in the same situation, whether the situation has to do with race, economic status or sexual orientation. Therefore, if people are arguing for a policy that affects many people, not just themselves, their proposal should be backed by some expertise other than just personal opinion.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    > it's very common for people to extrapolate based on their own experiences and speak for others No; it's very common for people to presume to extrapolate based on their own experiences, and to presume to speak for others. But they're not actually speaking for others.