An informed opinion is still an opinion. Voting itself is an expression of opinion, which they participated in - if it merely followed logically, it wouldn't have needed to be voted upon. Mind you, the "experience and rational discourse" is not presented, not in the policy, not in the excerpts and link you just provided.

In order to "refute" their entire position, if we accept that to even make sense (I do not), I'd need to either prove them wrong about what their opinions are (nonsense), or show evidence they were actually holding a different opinion that ran contrary to what they shared (impossible, their actual opinion is known only to them, if that). There's very little "logical payload" to their published policy, if any. It's a series of opinions, and then a conclusion. Hence my example with the person not liking a given TV show, but stating their distaste as a fact of the world.

> I doubt it, but if you have evidence refuting possibility #3, please share so we may all learn.

Why am I being rhetorically coerced into engaging with something from a false set of options of your imagination, exactly?