NE – I hear your point and you may be right. The problem was that something was being used as a proof that others are wrong and that something itself is a proof that it’s not the others who are wrong. If it weren’t for the sake of defending anyone, I would also agree that a response is not called for. The question is how one can refute the premise and defend one without offending the other or if that is not possible, would it be okay to defend one even if it involves offending the other? Also, it would probably help to have sources to quote which I don’t and I thought he might.
I do have an idea for a possible response and I might do so when I have a chance to think it through better.