Semantics are important. What could be more important to a communicative process such as debate (or even argument,) than the meaning of our words? How do we communicate and discover what’s true if we are speaking two different languages? Either way, i was not aware of any semantic debate.



I can do the exact same thing having watched a documentary on the topic. A doctor can do the same thing having spent years in medical school.



You are right. I chose intentionally to ask somebody who was not qualified but still fit within your recruiting guidelines. You asked that I find somebody with personal experience and lo, I did as you commanded. Alas, this did not produce the qualified candidate you promised me. No, it produced a morbidly obese red-neck who thought that having sex in a bathtub full of lukewarm water would keep her from getting pregnant.



I agree, the guidelines for recruiting you provided would be stupid in a real life situation. Luckily we are just talking. Which is technically a real situation, but that is another topic.


I did not experience my car-wreck? You wanna explain what the hell happened to my bumper then? Cuz now I’m totally curious. It wasn’t a “near,” car crash. It was not a car crash I witnessed. I was the car-crash. I wrecked into another driver. How is this something I am assumed to have experienced by proximity?

I do not believe I made any such mistake as you accuse; nor do I believe it is completely relevant to my main point. My main point was that if an opinion is valid and worthy coming from the lips of the naïve it is valid and worthy coming from the lips of the wise. You say my opinion is inaccurate because I hold it. That is nothing more than a petty, weightless, and illogical ad hominem. This whole argument stems from as straw-man’s fallacy.



There are two possibilities by your approach that you become more qualified based on personal experience. The first possibility is that it is a process. As your experience grows so does your qualification as a candidate. (And apparently the accuracy of your opinion, even if that opinion does not change.) The second possibility is that it is a sudden transformation. One moment you are not qualified, then you reach a certain level of personal experience and you spontaneously become qualified.

If we assume the former then the general is not as qualified as the random thug who was actually in the mob and personally experienced the riot for himself. The general learned about the riot because he was taught about the riot, most likely through video footage and briefing, not because he experienced it. He learned from a passive place of reflection, just as I have learned about pregnancy and abortion from a passive place of reflection. He did not learn in the heat of the moment, from experience. The thug did learn from experience. He may only have a ltitle, but he has still had more than the General and so he has progressed further along the road of qualification.

If we assume the latter then the general is most likely on the same ground as the random thug. Both have a finite pool of experience that has unlikely reached that level where they transform and are automatically the ideal candidate

In neither case is the general our best option as you conclude.

But again, all of this is moot. It was side-content. My main point was that being experienced as an individual in no way influences the worthiness, validity, or accuracy of my opinion. A lot of women who have never been pregnant are pro-life. Then they get pregnant multiple times and have babies and remain pro-life through it all. Happens all the time, just ask the Duggers. So, in the case of these women, did their opinion become more accurate as they gained experience? No, of course not, their opinion remained constant. It never changed whatsoever.

Then your main point is invalid. Opinions, even correct opinions, are simply flukes of chance when they aren't backed up by personal experience. You can study all you would like, but looking at pictures of watermelons will never give you the knowledge of what a watermelon actually tastes like. So then how will you decide your opinion on watermelons? By association with things you have tasted? Do you not also call those, experiences? And by association, are you ever able to get the exact taste of watermelons?

For the case of the riot, I said the one with experience of all facets of every aspect of the situation would be the ideal candidate, the ideal candidate to address anything and everything about the riot. If you wanted the opinion of an individual in the riot, you would ask the thug who experienced it. Being an individual in a riot doesn't mean you've automatically experienced the entire riot. It means you've experienced the parts of the riot that you could perceive with your five senses. If asked to give an opinion on those, the thug is better suited than the general. The reason why we ask the general is because of his experience in the past dealing with similar situations, as well as the information presented to him that pertains to the big picture, more than any individual experience actually in the riot could contribute. The reason we ask the general is because we want the big picture, not a singular personal experience.

So I still stand by my point, those who have experienced an event is best suited to give an opinion on the event. I will also add this, not to be redundant, but because you seem to be purposefully missing this obvious condition: They are best suited to give an opinion on the event, but only to the extent of their own experience.

I guess you’re right.