Would you come to the defence of someone opposite your position on an issue if those on your side attacked that person unjustly? Or would you remain silent?

I can defend the person’s right to speak freely without defending what he says. I don’t see any reason not to speak up.

What @nikipedia said.

But then having tried those upside down tomato planters, I could not be pro on this issue anyway. All my tomatoes grow better right side up than upside down.

Is this about Newt Gingrich lol?

The person being flamed isn’t ignorantly defending one side. If they’ve just asked a rational question, then there’s nothing wrong with that and I would defend them. But debates are also debates, and no one is being physically hurt, so it also depends on the topic to which I would decide if intervention is needed or not.

I have defended people on Fluther, whether or not I believe whole-heartedly in their position if I think they are being misunderstood or flamed for one part of their argument without consideration for the rest of what they post. Or if I think they are making a rational point but are being judged for a position they took on a different, unrelated topic.

Absolutely I would defend them. I don’t have to agree with them to believe in their right to present their argument without being attacked because it doesn’t conform to other views.

CLARIFICATION: The person being flamed isn’t the one who asked the question. He’s just joining in the discussion, in PART 1 asking both sides to support their arguments, and in PART 2 claiming that people should be free to choose for themselves which way they prefer.

Does hanging the plant upside down mean that the stem is now on the bottom of the tomato? And can the ensuing flame war be used to roast said tomato, saving energy and the environment?

These questions are worth pondering and would affect my involvement in the discussion.

Yes, I would. Even if I agree with somebody, if their reasoning is faulty, or they start flaming, they should be called out on it. Debates that get derailed are no fun, you don’t even get to feel like you won.

Yes, I would defend them. A debate is where you debate, not a roast where you’re incessantly cruel for the sake of being an asshole. Flaming is more evident of blatant ignorance than a rational question, and rational questions are evident of ignorance, but the point of asking is to resolve said ignorance. Whereas flaming furthers it.

I get called an atheist by Christians. And a Christian by atheists.

A conservative by liberals, and liberal by conservatives.

A RWNJ and a LWNJ.

So, I’m mostly on the side of the most reasonable argument. That seems to piss a lot of people off.

I can usually see both sides of an issue. I would like to think that I would stick up for the person;‘s right to disagree and their right to grow tomatoes any way they wanted to.

Yes and no. : )

@iamthemob – I get that, too :-p

I believe in God, but I’m not a Bible-thumping fundamentalist, so Christians call me athiest, and athiests call me Christian.

I’m a semi-libertarian, so liberals call me conservative, and conservatives call me liberal.

Such is life…

I get the same thing as @iamthemob in regards to declarations from opposing camps because I don’t fit into those categories. I defend the position I think is good, so I’ll find myself on the side of conservatives when it comes to gun talk (mostly) and liberals when it comes to race, gender, etc. (again, mostly).

If my “side” were unfairly persecuting someone (however that’s defined at the time) and I felt it was out of hand, I’d call them on it and recommend chilling out. But really, I don’t often see much of that here, as much as some people claim. Okay, well, the tone is sometimes too strong, but hell, I do that too. :P

@HungryGuy – I think when you tend to attempt a pragmatic approach to each issue instead of an ideological one to all at the same time…people get all mad at you for being right. ;-) Of course, I may be biased.

Yes. Flamers never have rational arguments, and tend to blast apart an opposing view based solely on the idea that any opposition is wrong, rather than on anything substantial. Also, nothing is more annoying than watching a bunch of like-minded people have a circle jerk around some hapless dude.

I don’t know if I would defend the person as such, but I would definitely point out the need to remain civil even in instances of intense disagreement.
As a matter of fact, I did it here. I was one of the first to disagree with the person who posted the question, but then things got out of hand and people disagreeing went to the extreme as to insult the person and I felt the urge to put a stop to that. More than defending the person, I was advocating for respect and acceptance of other points of view.

Yes, I would defend them. You don’t have to agree with your side on everything. The person did nothing wrong and didn’t even disagree with your side, so they shouldn’t be getting flamed.

If you mean on Fluther, yes. Every time.
There are other contexts where I would not.

I tend to lean left on many issues, so my Rightie friends can’t see any difference between me and Chairman Mao. On the other hand, I have friends to the wacky left of me, and when I call them on their BS, they can’t tell the difference between me and Glenn Beck. I suppose this means I’m doing just fine, since both wacky extremes can’t stand me.

To relate this to the question at hand, the wacky extremes can’t stand me because I sometimes rebuke them for their ill-considered epithets hurled at the other side. Even the side I disagree with, which is both, from time to time.

Sure. You can tell someone they have a valid opinion without actually agreeing with what they are saying.

@laureth I’ve been asked if I was part of the Tea Party after quoting Noam Chomsky. I kid you not. Some people really want to see those divisions too much, and some people just don’t have a clue.

“There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.”
—Daniel C. Dennett

Regarding Part 1, I would provide the evidence being sought or tell the person how to find it (not all evidence is linkable). Regarding Part 2, the tomato question is rather trivial given the fact that this question is about something more general. Choice is not an absolute value, which is why you aren’t allowed the choice as to whether or not to murder someone. If the attacks in the particular case really are unwarranted, however, I would post something saying why I think those attacks don’t work as arguments and then explain which arguments I think do work.

My constant slogan to my students, which has frequently leaked onto Fluther, is that why we believe is just as important as what we believe. It’s why I’ll write entire papers arguing that someone I disagree with isn’t wrong for the reasons someone I agree with thinks. It’s all about improving the dialectic.

Yeah, its not hard to separate a view from the way that view is expressed. In any event, flaming is counter-productive, the flame-ee gets more entrenched in their “wrong” view.

I never remain silent. I think it is shitty to be a dick just because you disagree with someone, and I will let that person know they are being a dick.

@jonsblond – Exactly! It’s really painful when you’re attacked merely for making a reasonable impartial statement about an issue just because you’re not an fervent advocate of the side of the argument of the person who attacked you. And it’s hard to resist the urge to snap back. And then those snaps get more and more heated until it becomes a flame war…

Sweet holy moly, if the person taking an opposite position was attacked or flamed for no reason, uncivilly or with out logic, I would champion them, and I feel I have. I have come to accept the fact I will piss people off on the left side of the road as well as the right, so, there will always be someone that will not be happy with what I said or how I said it. If the person growing tomatoes upside down has some logical argument they could make if it is at least plausible but all the facts and science is not complete I would respect their choice to grow it that way and their belief that it works. Unless I can logically proof it can’t or wont, or there are facts out there to blow holes in their theory I am not going to call them ignorant, crazy, dumb, or anything like that. They may even give me something to go research and learn something new. Sadly I think too many people get into grudges and flaming because they take the question way to personal and not logical in the spirit of the question; taking themselves personally out of it.

Yes I would, by telling those on “my side” that this person has a point, even if we don’t agree with it, and that he/she has a right to express it without being unduly attacked. I may even agree with a few things the person expouses, to show that I am not unfairly attacking the other person’s point of view.