[ordu]

> argue rationally.

Argue rationally about what? I invite you to stop for a moment, reread our converstaion while asking a question: what about are we supposedly arguing. There was no rational arguments, you've changed topic from peculiarities of anti-abortion mind works to peculiarities of pro-abortion minds, which I'm not interested in, how you can imagine. It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick to lure me into a discussion I don't want to be a part of.

> Your link is frequently posted by people who have no wish to argue rationally.

I suppose it was LLM who told you that? I personally never saw that link posted. In these situations people mostly invoke "whataboutism", but I just thought it was not right, before we established beyond reasonable doubt that you are fighting a political debate. I mean, we see demagogy used, check. But your motives are still not clear enough to claim with certainty that you are caught up in political partisanship and it is the reason behind your behavior.

[lelanthran]

You entire thesis was that one party to the argument is stupid.

My reply (with evidence, btw, see poster upthread) is that both parties are stupid.

I am obviously not on any one side of this issue (see all my other replies); you obviously are on one side of this issue.

After all, while you call the pro-lifers "anti-abortion", you aren't calling the pro-choices "anti-life", are you? There's a reason all the rest of us have settled on "pro-*", and that's because we are respecting the arguments being made.

You are merely slinging mud. After all, which sane person can really be proud of saying things like this:

> I mean, we see demagogy used, check.

> anti-abortion

> you are caught up in political partisanship

> It is not a rational debate, it is a rhetorical trick

(It's Not X, It's Y - huh, where do we usually see that?)

> unable to understand

> A dogmatic worldview can lead to such behavior.

Did you notice that you entire argument is based around calling people names and/or attributing malice intent to their position?

You didn't even try to make an argument. If I was you, I'd be too ashamed to even post here...

Oh, and finally...

> I suppose it was LLM who told you that?

If it makes you feel any better about yourself, then sure. Believe that.

[ordu]

> You entire thesis was that one party to the argument is stupid.

It is your interpretation of it. My proposed explanation for their behavior is not stupidity, but dogmatism of their worldview.

> I am obviously not on any one side of this issue

It doesn't seem obvious for me at all. You are talking emotionally, trying to trigger my emotions with all kinds of tricks. I infer that you are emotionally invested into the topic.

> After all, while you call the pro-lifers "anti-abortion", you aren't calling the pro-choices "anti-life", are you?

Yes. The problem is with abortions. And "pro-lifers" if you look at them closely, are not fighting for life, they are fighting against abortion. They do not fight against wars, against anti-vaccine people, they do not fight about automobiles. There is a lot of opportunities to fight for life, but they fight against abortions, which is not even close to a top cause of deaths among humans.

They name themselves "pro-life" but it is a sneaky way to frame a discourse.

> You are merely slinging mud.

I'm asking for alternative explanations for anti-abortion activists behavior. Anything beyond dogmatism would be welcome. You are talking about me instead.

> Did you notice that you entire argument is based around calling people names and/or attributing malice intent to their position?

I do not attribute malice. Though I allow myself to express opinions about what is going on in their head, but it is the whole premise of it. I'm interested in what is going on in their heads. I have one explanation, you fail to provide another.

> You didn't even try to make an argument.

You don't seem to be interested about my arguments. You never asked about my reasoning that allows me to jump from the observed behavior to dogmatism. So why would I spend my breath explaining you things that you are not interested in?

> If it makes you feel any better about yourself, then sure. Believe that.

It is not about me, it is about you. I'm interested in what is going on in minds of others, and I don't see any other explanation for you claim than LLM. You see, I've learned about tu quoque specifically for that post. I felt that "whataboutism" is something close to what you did, but not exactly that, so I visited wikipedia and looked around to find this article. And then you state that you see it all the time. I'm very interested in rhetoric tricks, if I noticed a link to that article before, I'd remember it. But I don't.

But you somehow generated the claim that this link used all the time. How?

I can agree that I was not too polite, I should have asked you, where you've learned that, instead of voicing my hypothesis, but still I've asked. And I ask again. But you never answer questions, so I shouldn't hope for an answer, should I?