How much weight that voice carrys,depends on the credibility they have earned.. . . . OUTLAW
I hear ya OUTLAW . . . and credibility is a valid feature in debate.
A problem only arises when a "voice" is heard based too much on "credibility" and not enough on the content of their argument. Most posters achieve a reasonable balance of each, when responding, but a number don't. This thread has been useful, in that an assesment of "credibility" when taken too far becomes a prejudice.
When that happens, the same opinion will be treated quite differently, based entirely on who it is that is expressing it. This gives the impression of a heirarchial structure whether it exists or not.
Whether it be applicable to the individual or not, the danger of prejudice based on credibility alone, is something that each needs to recognise and be wary of. Benefit of the doubt based on what we may not know when assessing credibility, and instead focussing on content is a wiser course for any to whom it may apply IMO.
Without dragging out names and details . . . a particular thread that has been commented on here, displayed all of the dangers I'm referring to, and to a worrying level. Any who care to, may wish to revisit that thread in light of what's been discussed here and make their own assessment . . . and adjustments if appropriate. I don't excuse myself from that process either.