Debating Moronic Points

Let me preface this post by saying this:
I love to debate. I love to argue the issues in an environment that is condusive to learning from other people's thoughts and opinions on the "meaty issues" facing us today.

That being said, let me say this:
Some people are absolute MORONS! I pulled into the post office on Saturday mailing fathers day cards (sorry dads - they will be late this year), and some woman was parked in the lot with a cop beside her. She had an infant in the front seat laying in a car seat. The officer was very politely, yet sternly informing her of the perils of car seats in the front seat.

This woman's argument?
"This is my child, if I want to put him in danger, it is my right to do so".

Now - I didn't stick around to see how this all turned out, but all I was thinking is this.
1. This woman is a moron, and should probably be slapped with child indangerment charges.
2. She had no legitimacy or basis for her argument, yet she continued to "debate" with this officer on her rights as I went into the building.

Makes me wonder a little bit about the debates I love. When people feel passionately about something - whether it is right or wrong under the law and devoid of logic, does their pure basis of beliefs constiture a legitimate argument? What do you think?

O the Stupidity

Nelson Blewett, 22, was treated for serious burns in Port Angeles, Wash., on May 18 after playing a game of TAG-tag with pals. They were spritzing each other with TAG body spray and then striking matches, creating mostly lower-risk flames. Then, perhaps inspired by too much beer, one friend added lighter fluid to the game. Blewett was afire for 30 to 45 seconds until he leaped from a second-story porch and rolled on the ground. (He survived but with "excruciating" second- and third-degree burns.) [Peninsula Daily News, 5-21-09]