If you reject a policy that's sound because an idiot proposed it or supported it, you're engaging in a nice ad hominem fallacy.
Which goes something like "we can ignore the argument and focus on the person, because a bad person cannot possibly have sound facts or sound reasoning." That's totally false.
Now, if the person's a known liar it'll cast doubt on everything he says and the decision may be that it's simply not worth the time and effort (since both are limited) to check out his facts and claims. That just means you ignore the person entirely. But if somebody else supports that policy or argument, you don't go back and say, "Well, Mr. Liar supported it, so it must be false."
Take somebody like Feynman, a great physicist. However, he was an adulterer and had thing for young women and fast cars. This was the late '50s and early '60s, when "playboy lifestyle" meant "degenerate, or nearly so." However his physics was top notch. You wouldn't want your son to emulate his behavior, but you'd want him to learn as much physics and just how to think from him as possible. (And, no, one doesn't lead to the other.)
Similarly, a politician deep into kiddie porn might have a great idea for economic policy. Some of the brightest people I've known have been cruel, petty, and vindictive, as well as narcissistic; or they've been absurdly foolish in other ways. "Here's this great theory of human cognition, but, you know, I sort of left the country for 6 months and forgot to inform any of the power companies or arrange for my mortgage to be paid ... And the dog I left tied up in the back yard ...." Einstein became fixated on repeating the kind of thing he'd done--taking two separate ideas and uniting them into one theory, and in so doing missed out on even possibly being a player in the up and coming kinds of physics in the 1920s. Newton became fixated on quasi-alchemy and predicting Christ's return (not to mention being in charge of the mint and most likely framing somebody suspected of counterfeiting). Einstein and Newton were both brilliant and both fools. Their foolishness doesn't reduce the brilliance of their other ideas.
Sloppy thinkers confuse ideas with their adherents or proposers. Ideally there'd be a perfect match between morality and intellect, but I'm just not seeing it. It's like Stalin--cruel bastard but he loved small children: He always stopped to pick up little kids or talk to them, and always had candy in his pocket as a treat.
Various people have been credited with a saying something like, "Small minds talk about people, mediocre minds about events and things, and great minds about ideas." ("Mediocre" has a bad rap, it just means "average".)
People presenting ideas and proposals only matter because of what most people are like. This is a flaw, not a feature, IMO. While it has to be taken into account, it certainly should be resisted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
