He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
- John Stuart Mill
Interesting question and thoughtful distinction!
My initial thought is that while you might not be engaging with why trump supporters are for it, I think it still counts because the people making the policy are probably doing it for reasons that are disconnected to the beliefs of the rank and file.
I put it akin to religion and whatnot. If the only argument for or against something is religion, I don’t give it much credence other than the basic “I generally think it’s good to be respectful of religion until it interferes with others.” But even if their reason is religion, if there’s actually a good reason, that good reason may be worth engaging with.
Not sure if I’m making sense, it’s been a looooooooooong day after a longer week.