I object to the idea that you have no right to an opinion without direct experience regarding the matter at hand.

The reason why I object is because I've too often seen people raise that particular argument as a last ditch defense for political, philosophical or ethical stances that they simply can't justify logically. In short, when people find that they can't justify their own opinions, they move on to the much weaker position of attacking the experience or proficiency of others.

Now, I know that what Fuzzybottom said was actually that "a person [does not have] the right to an opinion about a subject he or she has no knowledge of or experience with." I can't really disagree with that exact statement, because I don't think that there's a person in the world who has an opinion on something they have no knowledge of. But I can disagree with the underlying idea that if you don't have direct experience with the subject matter at hand, then you have no right to an opinion.

I have never had anyone I know murdered, nor have I gone through an abortion, nor have I been prevented from attaining a job because of my race... but it is still possible for me to have well-considered, valid opinions on each of those matters.

Experience is definitely a factor in any opinion, but it is hardly the sole defining factor... It is quite possible for people who have a great deal of experience in a given subject to hold pretty silly, poorly thought out positions, while other people with far less experience hold opinions that are far more reasonable, informed and complete.

I will be happy to continue this line of thought if FuzzyBottom will provide some examples of situations where he feels direct experience is required for the formation of an opinion.