I don’t want to say what spawned this, but I think it’s an interesting question.
This is a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.
Let’s say you are having a closely fought debate; Somebody on your side of the debate, says something ignorant that you would never let go if you heard it from the other side, but, since it’s in support of your side of the debate should you just let it go?
What if it’s unsuportable or a gross logical leap?
If you say nothing are you a hypocrite?
Should you join the other side in denouncing this person, or is it best just not to address those things he/she says that are unfair, idiotic or unsupportable?
I know I’ve gone both ways and have occasionally been the idiot in question.
To me, it really depends upon how central the comment is to my own discussion. Often, several parallel discussions will take place in a thread. I feel no need, generally, to comment upon conversations collateral to my own.
It also depends, for me, upon the effect of the comment. If all sides (other than the idiot) just shrug and carry on with their business, I doubt I would feel the necessity of pointing out an error my oppponent has let pass. If the comment became an issue in the debate, I would probably voice my opinion.
I seem to recall some notable, um, exchanges with Libertarian after he had posted a statement in support of my position which I took exception to. Then again, that might just have been a consequence of the particular individuals involved.
The proper thing to do is ignore them. Since they are “on your side” you cannot bash them- that would be impolite -joining in on the bashing would be traitorous. But, you can hardly support them. I remember once when one of our more respected posters started a thread here. His main supporter, to start, was “W. Bill”. I posted “Does it bother you at all to see that “w. Bill” is your biggest supporter so far?”. He said something along the lines of “I try not to think of that”.
If your purpose is to present the best argument possible and someone is saying, supposedly in support of your point, something stupid, you should correct is asap. Not only is this good for your credibility, it also prevents you from being a hyprocrite.
I don’t know why we have to fall into tribal alliances in discussions.
I would like to be even-handed to all, regardless of my position, but I generally only have time and energy to pick apart the arguments of those on the other side. There have been arguments I’ve abandoned rather than try to help out people who happen to be correct for all the wrong reasons. I think I’ve also corrected people on my side from time to time, but I haven’t exactly made a habit of it. I don’t see any obligation to leave anyone who spouts arrant nonsense alone, but life is only so long.
St. James had this same problem with St. Paul (James’s letter in the NT is almost a verse for verse correction of the arguments in Paul’s letter to the Romans). To paraphrase him: “Fighting ignorance makes up for a few bad arguments.”
I ran into this situation with Jack Dean Tyler and the circumcision debates. I believe that it is wrong to perform circumcision on infants, and would go as far as wishing for a law against it similar to what we have for FGM, but JDT makes the anti-circumcision cause look ridiculous with his unsupported claims about differences in sexual behavior between circs and the uncut and that bullshit about some kind of Jewish conspiracy. What I did was make a post stating why I felt the way I did about the issue, and pointed out the things he was saying that I felt were wrong.
Weirder still, considering Paul was talking about circumcision in Romans and that was exactly where James was reigning him in. To quote Cartman, “This $#!+'s pretty ~^@&ed up right here.”
I think it’s best if you can post before the opponents do. If you can jump in and say, “Well, I see where you’re going with this but you’re not doing it right.” and then post something especially thoughtful that distracts from the mistake of your allied idiot, then you’re going to be fairly successful. If the opponents get in and score some points before you can defuse the situation then you may have a long road ahead trying to get back to the legitimate debate.
Gaudere did this for me at least once, i.e. I was the allied idiot and she covered for me when I overgeneralized, something I tend to do. It’s so easy to say “Christians” when you mean to say “most Christians” or even “many of the Christians within my realm of experience”. An ally who steps in and says, “I don’t think you meant to say that all christians do that.” before the opponents jump in, can save a lot of pointless debate.
When you have a genuine idiot who won’t back down from their statements, it’s a good idea to distance yourself from them early on. Start talking about it not being an issue of black or white, set up the opportunity to have more than two sides to the argument and don’t pick the side with the idiot.
