But a thread titled, What about a boy playing on a girls’ sports team? invites discussion about boys and girls playing sports on the same team. Arguing that a poster is using poor reasoning is, given the subject of the thread, a digression at the very least.
Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE pointing out faulty reasoning. I’ll happily argue that someone I disagree with can’t post a logical argument. But after a round or two of that, even I’m ready to just state my case and walk away.
Does it make any difference or less of a hijack in your mind that the thread was started almost 5 years ago and long since abandoned by the OP? Further, at the time I posted the first time, no one had posted for 6 days. So clearly the main topic of the OP was discussed as much as anyone had intended. It was only then that I brought up the related (not a hijack) question of rationale for keeping sports separated along gender lines.
The rest of the thread was because, as others have pointed out, my points were completely misconstrued as very eloquently explained by Roland Orzabal and Ellis Dee.
Not to be a junior mod here, but reviving a thread after six days that had “discussed as much as any had intended” a topic, only to suggest a “related” question, MIGHT have been better accomplished by opening an entirely new thread.
Point taken. I thought it was related enough, but I see your point.
I asked your opinion, so no junior modding was inferred.
Ehhh. cmosdes, I get that you’re gracefully bowing out, and kudos for the restraint, but I’m gonna go ahead and stand up for the point that arguing against flawed reasoning is relevant in the context of ANY debate. This remains true no matter how obvious the correct conclusion is. In a thread titled “Should we stab toddlers in the face?”, I’d say the consensus is probably going to be that no, we should not. But if someone makes the argument that we shouldn’t do this because knives are scary and no one should ever use them, it’d be perfectly relevant and appropriate to argue against that, and to pursue that argument to whatever lengths necessary…if not for the sake of rationality, then for no reason other than to do otherwise would be to allow your opponents to to call you a hypocrite for admitting to buttering bread. And this in turn is true even if, as I’ve found is likely, doing so earns you a steady stream of “WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING TODDLER STABBING?!” in response.
Bad reasoning is bad, and debating by using bad reasoning should make one feel bad. The only way it could ever be in poor form to point this out would be in the context of a conversation that didn’t start as a debate, in which case it could be considered rude. In this particular context and on this forum, though? Pointing out poor reasoning is always relevant; otherwise, we’re not actually engaged in intellectually honest debate.