A bit meta, but a discussion about topics such as pro choice/life

[mikeymikec]

I was reading an article on Slashdot that is related to the pro choice/life topic, and as usual I read some of the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you, but on a topic like that, my experience is that everyone taking part in such a discussion has already heard pretty much every argument for either/every side of the topic, and so the likelihood of someone who was previously of one opinion to reverse it as a result of the discussion is virtually zero.

So, bearing both of these points in mind, I'm quite surprised that the battle lines get drawn in pretty much the same way every time; ie. people get annoyed with their opponent(s) and people keep trotting out the same old arguments every time.

The only explanation I can think of is that in pretty much every case of such a discussion (at least online), there's always some arsehole who ups the ante with some inflammatory remark and/or an absurd simplification of the opponents' argument(s).

Thoughts?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I was reading an article on Slashdot that is related to the pro choice/life topic, and as usual I read some of the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you, but on a topic like that, my experience is that everyone taking part in such a discussion has already heard pretty much every argument for either/every side of the topic, and so the likelihood of someone who was previously of one opinion to reverse it as a result of the discussion is virtually zero.

So, bearing both of these points in mind, I'm quite surprised that the battle lines get drawn in pretty much the same way every time; ie. people get annoyed with their opponent(s) and people keep trotting out the same old arguments every time.

The only explanation I can think of is that in pretty much every case of such a discussion (at least online), there's always some arsehole who ups the ante with some inflammatory remark and/or an absurd simplification of the opponents' argument(s).

Thoughts?

There are 2 kinds of people: Those who understand the facts and adhere to the truth in a consistent matter, and those who think abortion should be illegal.

The latter group are fundamentally misogynists, all the while they suppose they are being chivalrous. Such people are uneducated in the utmost, hence their tendency to religious fanaticism. I'm sure a few will be along here in due time to provide for examples.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And after reading my own post a few times I think it may not be as clear as I'd intended -- I'm attempting to exemplify the absolutism he is lamenting.

 

[pcgeek11]

I was reading an article on Slashdot that is related to the pro choice/life topic, and as usual I read some of the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you, but on a topic like that, my experience is that everyone taking part in such a discussion has already heard pretty much every argument for either/every side of the topic, and so the likelihood of someone who was previously of one opinion to reverse it as a result of the discussion is virtually zero.

So, bearing both of these points in mind, I'm quite surprised that the battle lines get drawn in pretty much the same way every time; ie. people get annoyed with their opponent(s) and people keep trotting out the same old arguments every time.

The only explanation I can think of is that in pretty much every case of such a discussion (at least online), there's always some arsehole who ups the ante with some inflammatory remark and/or an absurd simplification of the opponents' argument(s).

Thoughts?

There are 2 kinds of people: Those who understand the facts and adhere to the truth in a consistent matter, and those who think abortion should be illegal.

The latter group are fundamentally misogynists, all the while they suppose they are being chivalrous. Such people are uneducated in the utmost, hence their tendency to religious fanaticism. I'm sure a few will be along here in due time to provide for examples.

And just like on command out pops the requested arsehole! Amazing.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And just like on command out pops the requested arsehole! Amazing.

ahem ^^

 

[Retro Rob]

I was reading an article on Slashdot that is related to the pro choice/life topic, and as usual I read some of the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you, but on a topic like that, my experience is that everyone taking part in such a discussion has already heard pretty much every argument for either/every side of the topic, and so the likelihood of someone who was previously of one opinion to reverse it as a result of the discussion is virtually zero.

So, bearing both of these points in mind, I'm quite surprised that the battle lines get drawn in pretty much the same way every time; ie. people get annoyed with their opponent(s) and people keep trotting out the same old arguments every time.

The only explanation I can think of is that in pretty much every case of such a discussion (at least online), there's always some arsehole who ups the ante with some inflammatory remark and/or an absurd simplification of the opponents' argument(s).

Thoughts?

Tell us something we don't know? Seriously, all sarcasm aside.

I believe we live in an insanely polarized society now. FWIW, I take the position that I disagree with abortion, yet, wouldn't make it illegal...wouldn't dare.

I cannot in good conscious force people to not have abortions if they want to.

 

[Ancalagon44]

It's the same with all serious debates.

When has a religious person ever converted because of an online debate?

There are even studies on the kinds of bias that people. Seeing evidence that contradicts what you believe just makes you dig your heels in.

 

[DigDog]

are we back in the 90s? it's been proven without doubt that abortion is not murder. why is this still an argument.

pcgeek, i like your posts, but this time i have to disagree - Cerpin is right. you're either someone who understands factually what abortion is, or you're not, and those who are pro life are always in the not camp.

 

[swamplizard]

Greetings,

I agree with Retro Rob, it's not up to me to decide what a Woman does with her body.

 

[mikeymikec]

Tell us something we don't know? Seriously, all sarcasm aside.

It wasn't my intention to "tell" anyone anything, I was remarking on a phenomenon that I perceive around such "discussions". As a result of my perception, I generally don't bother to discuss certain topics with people online any more because it's utterly pointless (unless some new evidence comes to light or a whole new perspective on the topic is expressed), unless one finds entertainment in online custard pie throwing contests, figuratively speaking, IMO.

I just wondered if other people had any opinions on why this happens.

 

[Greenman]

are we back in the 90s? it's been proven without doubt that abortion is not murder. why is this still an argument.

pcgeek, i like your posts, but this time i have to disagree - Cerpin is right. you're either someone who understands factually what abortion is, or you're not, and those who are pro life are always in the not camp.

Link to this proof please? The only proof I'm aware of is that it isn't illegal, so it can't be murder, unless the mother wants the child, then it's murder.

 

[crashtech]

At its core, this issue forces a value judgement that facts can't inform. Therefore the contention won't ever end.

 

[nakedfrog]

It wasn't my intention to "tell" anyone anything, I was remarking on a phenomenon that I perceive around such "discussions". As a result of my perception, I generally don't bother to discuss certain topics with people online any more because it's utterly pointless (unless some new evidence comes to light or a whole new perspective on the topic is expressed), unless one finds entertainment in online custard pie throwing contests, figuratively speaking, IMO.

I just wondered if other people had any opinions on why this happens.

People love to fight/argue about things, and explain how the other people are wrong?

 

[DigDog]

Link to this proof please?

no, i'm sorry. i don't want to repeat the 90s. you either get it, or you don't; you don't.

 

[sm625]

Those who kill their babies will be outbred by those who dont. Therefore it is obvious which will win in the end. People dont usually consider the long term implications of this when they decide which side of the fence they want to be on. But doing so can alter their perspective and even possibly get them to change their mind. It is relatively rare, but certainly possible. If it happens to you, then good for you. If not then dont worry. In 100 years, your ideas and your thoughts will be replaced by those from one of the races that outbred you. So when you're deciding whether or not you want to be a baby slayer or support baby slayers, you might want to stop and consider whether your heritage, your race, your culture... are those things of any value to you? And if so, then you might want to stop doing things or thinking things that result in the extermination of your own gene pool.

 

[crashtech]

Actually, the pro-abortion stance found its genesis in the eugenics movement, so it was the undesirable babies (poor, "colored," mixed race, etc.) that were to be aborted; this sentiment seems to lurk in the shadows even still.

 

[nakedfrog]

I was reading an article on Slashdot that is related to the pro choice/life topic, and as usual I read some of the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you, but on a topic like that, my experience is that everyone taking part in such a discussion has already heard pretty much every argument for either/every side of the topic, and so the likelihood of someone who was previously of one opinion to reverse it as a result of the discussion is virtually zero.

So, bearing both of these points in mind, I'm quite surprised that the battle lines get drawn in pretty much the same way every time; ie. people get annoyed with their opponent(s) and people keep trotting out the same old arguments every time.

The only explanation I can think of is that in pretty much every case of such a discussion (at least online), there's always some arsehole who ups the ante with some inflammatory remark and/or an absurd simplification of the opponents' argument(s).

Thoughts?

I do find it telling that there keep being posts in this thread about the abortion issue itself, versus what you were actually trying to discuss.

 

[mikeymikec]

I do find it telling that there keep being posts in this thread about the abortion issue itself, versus what you were actually trying to discuss.

Yeah, I guess people love to beat a dead horse.

 

[crashtech]

I do find it telling that there keep being posts in this thread about the abortion issue itself, versus what you were actually trying to discuss.

I apologize for my part in any OT activity; what I wanted to convey in my first post is that issues like the one mentioned in the OP, and many others as well, involve value judgements that many people don't even realize they are making. I can't absolve myself of this trait, and anyone who claims to is suspect and probably not worth engaging with.

 

[Retro Rob]

It wasn't my intention to "tell" anyone anything, I was remarking on a phenomenon that I perceive around such "discussions". As a result of my perception, I generally don't bother to discuss certain topics with people online any more because it's utterly pointless (unless some new evidence comes to light or a whole new perspective on the topic is expressed), unless one finds entertainment in online custard pie throwing contests, figuratively speaking, IMO.

I just wondered if other people had any opinions on why this happens.

OK, I think I got you.

I think people simply want to believe they're absolutely right, and any singe of compromise undermines that.

I think this is partly the result of our politics here. You simply voice disagreement with X, you're a bigot, or a [fill-in-the blank]aphobe. So people are more inclined to take a side and stick with it at all costs because the language is really non-negotiable. Calling someone a "bigot" is non-negotiable. Saying someone will "burn in Hell" is non-negotiable. Basically, its the absolutism.

Deep down, I think this is what underlines those attitudes.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, I guess people love to beat a dead horse.

That's because a live horse is too hard to catch.

 

[Greenman]

no, i'm sorry. i don't want to repeat the 90s. you either get it, or you don't; you don't.

So you don't have any evidence to back up your proven fact, got it.

 

[Greenman]

Actually, the pro-abortion stance found its genesis in the eugenics movement, so it was the undesirable babies (poor, "colored," mixed race, etc.) that were to be aborted; this sentiment seems to lurk in the shadows even still.

This is something else I've never heard of. Got a link? I'd like to read more about this.

 

[pcgeek11]

are we back in the 90s? it's been proven without doubt that abortion is not murder. why is this still an argument.

pcgeek, i like your posts, but this time i have to disagree - Cerpin is right. you're either someone who understands factually what abortion is, or you're not, and those who are pro life are always in the not camp.

I do understand what abortion is, I am prolife, but that doesn't absolutely place me in the "Not Camp". The blanket statement is just incorrect.

I am OK with abortion under certain conditions such as severe congenital defects, rape, incest and even early terminations. That being said late term abortions and opening the door for any abortion any time for any reason is just wrong morally in my opinion and should be illegal.

 

[Kartajan]

1) by stating the specific example argument, many focus there vice the trend the OP was referencing.
2) refer to this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster