Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
just world fallacy probably.
Don’t forget Brandolini’s law either:
“the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it”.
And they will. Because they’re not arguing in good faith. Because their arguments are bullshit.
You’re right: the zealots won’t be affected by this, because their cognitive shortcuts aren’t even getting as far as ad hominem. Their cognitive shortcut is a hardwired short circuit. There’s not even really any logical process, there’s just “BABY KILLER BABY KILLER BABY KILLER …” on a loop. You can’t argue with that. But not all people are zealots. Not even the woman who found herself with the leopards eating her face. She thought she knew what was at stake, she thought the people she trusted would act humanely, sanely, with empathy. And she discovered she was wrong.
This isn’t about deciding the truth of an argument. It’s a heuristic for making the judgement as to whether it’s worth making the effort to determine the truth of an argument. And for a first pass filter, it really does matter who’s making the argument.
And, yes, Fox News viewers use that heuristic as well.
But some of them can still be persuaded. There are still people on that side of the aisle who can be persuaded, once you break through that first wall.
Not all, maybe even not most, but I have to believe that there are enough, and that it’s worth the effort to find them and convince them.
Nope, and you read the actual proposition correctly. The forced-birthers can’t win any arguments on facts, so they make up absurd lies in their attempts to trick us into voting ‘no’.
They can twist it all around for their claims of anyone being able to perform abortions like your personal trainer in a gym or parental consent or even sterilization of nine year olds because that word is in there but the whole kill a baby up to a month after it’s born is tinfoil body suit territory.
I’ve asked a couple people in my local Facebook or Nextdoor group to please explain how murdering a one month old baby could ever possibly be legal or even on a ballot put up for a vote.
Their answer is always the same, it’s in the proposal, obviously you didn’t read it and I’m not going to explain it if you can’t read.
They’ve also decided that the words “compelling state interest” means the state will decide who gets an abortion and who does not and if we allow the state to do that what’s next.
But on the plus side, I have family and friends who I never thought would vote yes are telling me they are voting yes and they are actively telling others they should vote yes. So unless those ads convince people to change their vote it should pass.
Reality looks nothing like what the forced birthers have on their fright posters, websites and brochures.
That’s tissue; the potential fodder for becoming a human being.
That’s what they insist upon equating with a fully formed infant.
I won’t link gross images, but a 9-wk old prostate tumor looks more like a baby than that.
If that’s what it takes, then so be it.
Can confirm. When the other party has begun by rejecting any and all facts and science, you not going to get anywhere with facts and science. Took me a while to fully realize this, but, depressing as it is, them’s the facts.
The underlying question is not whether a fetus is a person. Rather, it is whether a woman (is) a person, or simply property.
When I was raped in grad school, I had a pregnancy scare. I was lucky in that I didn’t end up getting pregnant. If I had, I cannot imagine the trauma of undergoing a community-level review so that perfect strangers could decide if I should be sentenced to motherhood bc of a crime
Much like the Puritans did in the good old days. /s
Because a smaller government that does less regulating has the time to interfere with medical and personal decisions?