People that don't know basic grammar should have their opinions forcibly removed

I apologise if I misunderstood your position. My main argument, However, Still stands; accuracy of grammar is a very narrow criterion to judge somebody against. Not all opinions are rooted in academic knowledge; for example, I would struggle to win a debate over sport or fashion regardless of my opponent’s grammar skills. Therefore, I believe that my previous argument applies to knowledge just as much as it does to overall intelligence. You point out that those with high literacy skills tend to be well-read. That may be true, However you’ve completely ignored the important role experience plays in shaping our opinions. For example, A homeless person may not have read many books however that doesn’t make their opinion over the unfairness of society invalid. Conversely, Somebody who’s read numerous fantasy novels doesn’t suddenly become an expert on drug addiction simply because they own a bookshelf. Spelling and grammar are too cruder benchmarks to judge expertise by. If your main concern is over how informed somebody’s opinion is then this should be your focus. You are, No doubt, Familiar with the ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy should not be confused with general name calling and rudeness, Rather, Any attempt to attack the person at the expense of the argument commits this fallacy regardless of how accurately and politely it is presented. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy gives the example of judging Johannes Kepler's astronomy based upon her age, Stating “reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, Not on the arguer's age or anything else about her personally. ”(1) It’s important to note that even if there is a correlation between age, Experience and knowledge the example on the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy still stands. Dismissing an argument because its wording contains a grammatical error commits the ad hominem fallacy; I fail to see how committing a logical fallacy is going to raise the level of a debate. Finally, You bring up the example of politics. You write, “it's not necessarily people with bad grammar that I would love to be suppressed, It's what they often represent”; I personally think it’s dangerous to supress any group of people. Those with low levels of literacy tend to be the poorest and most disadvantaged in a society and there’s no reason to assume that a politician from a very privileged background is going to fully understand their plight. Even before we begin to consider those with a less than honest agenda, A top private education will automatically mean you lack some of the life experiences that might be of great relevance to certain policy areas. “Re-evaluating their opinions”, As you put it, Is precisely about listening to a broad and diverse range of views rather than limiting yourself to those with a similar background and education to yourself. It’s easy to focus on the lies and bad arguments that got Donald Trump into power, However, Maybe if Hillary Clinton had done more to listen to the concerns of ordinary people she would have pulled in enough votes to push her over the line. It is by completely ignoring the opinions of the masses that creates an environment where the popularism of Trump flourishes. Consequently, I believe you’ve failed to demonstrate how literacy automatically correlates to expertise outside of certain academic disciplines, You’ve failed to explain why we should focus on somebody’s grammar instead of going straight to the argument itself and failed to show why supressing already marginalised groups of people is going to make the world a better place. Thus, I maintain that people who don't know basic grammar should still be entitled to an opinion. This doesn’t mean that all opinions are valid, Simply that arguments should be judged on their own merit. 1. Https://www. Iep. Utm. Edu/fallacy/#AdHominem