And that's often a good outcome. Consider for example this article published recently by a Connecticut state senator on why she wants to put people in jail for having 'fake weed'.
http://newcanaan.patch.com/articles/fake-pot-a-new-threat-to...
The entire article was riddled with sloppy thinking, and thoroughly plagiarized, so I got all of reddit to utterly destroy her until she deleted all of her comments and wrote a followup stating that the issue was no longer a top priority of hers. I tried to engage her respectfully first, but since she wasn't willing to engage in an intellectually honest debate then going out and fucking up her day seemed like the second best option. Overall I'd consider it a win. Sure it would have been better to get her to change her opinion, but once it becomes clear that no amount of facts or logic her will persuade her then embarrassing her until she shuts the fuck up becomes the best option left on the table.
This: "I got all of reddit to utterly destroy her" is the exact type of mentality that myself, and as I estimate, the OP, have a problem with.
No one's revoking her right to express an opinion, we're just revoking her right to make shit up. If she was familiar with the facts and she was still against marijuana reform then no one would begrudge her of that, but she doesn't get a free pass to lie to the public.
If someone's ignorance cannot be altered or at least reasonably discussed, I think that's perfectly okay. That just means it's time for me to move on.
I don't see how attacking or embarrassing someone would make you feel better about your side of things. I'd much rather let that person enjoy their own ignorance.
Note: I tend to lack/block out very strong emotions
You have a moral obligation to be less wrong: http://www.wrongbot.com/2011/02/27/stop-being-wrong-a-moral-...
My conscience is better off letting someone have a right to their own opinion (albeit a poor one), rather than attacking them for it.
In other words, I'd rather choose to understand where their point of view is coming from and accept it, than to try and change it.
If I have a point of view that binder clips should be made illegal because they're hideous, and manage to make that a law, then A: My point of view is making regular stationers criminals, and B: I might have put people who make binder clips out of work.
Everyone has a point of view, but not all of them are reasonable, and simply having them can screw other people up.
Everyone is welcome to have their opinions. When one attempts to act on those opinions in a way that's harmful to other people, one cannot but expect others to oppose.
Let's say I believe that three-year-olds can fly if only they're forced into a situation where they must do so in order to save their lives. It's a stupid opinion, but it's harmless if it's just a thought sitting in my head.
Now let's say I decide that I need to teach a bunch of three-year-olds to tap their innate flying ability by throwing them off a bridge. Is stopping me from doing so disrespectful of my opinion? Would that actually give you pause in stopping me?
Respecting someone's opinion is fine and dandy, but your inalienable right to your opinion stops when it starts motivating action involving others; at that point, the general rules regarding your rights when interacting with other people apply.
I agree that if it's just that kind of content-free junk, it's pointless.
However, if the beatdown comes with a factual and logical refutation of the idiot's points, or at least a link to a site that has such a refutation, then it performs the inestimable service of educating the lurkers.
For example, let's say we had an anti-vaccinationist come here and start spreading lies about vaccines. We would, rightly, be dismayed at such utter lunacy at work in our forum, and we would (hopefully) post multiple refutations of that dangerous nonsense. Ideally, the lunatic would find that we are not amenable to that kind of idiocy and would leave, sadly uneducated (most likely) but at least doing less damage. The real benefit to such actions may come months later, when someone unsure of the facts about vaccines discovers a dead thread that has all of this wonderful information we used to refute the idiot.
(And, heck, we might even convince the anti-vaxxer. It could happen.)
To do so, make sure you only crush the the mistake, without beating the person down. Not easy to do without de-emphasising your point though:
"You say that 2+2=5, but I think you might be misinformed…" The more direct "No, 2+2=4. II+II=IIII. 1,2,3,4." might be perceived as too blunt, especially if the context is emotional (children, programming languages…).
"The problem is that when people start mouthing off about factual issues they don't know anything about they can cause a lot of damage, so crushing them is often a necessity."
Is exactly the type of thing that comes from the hive mind, and is why it's impossible to be a dissenter. It's usually "you don't know what you are talking about," followed by bashing until the person takes their ball and goes home.