Replies

Fence sitters like you are the reason why late term abortions on demand, tax payer supported and for under age girls without parental consent/knowledge were or are a reality.

Since we're all about “feelings” how's that one? Ever hear of an ad homonym attack? Another fallacy. But why not? You haven't argued using a single fact of logically constructed argument yet...

Some issues are all or nothing. The “fence sitter,” the so called “moderate,” wants to feel good about himself but fails to realize a few things:

1. Compromises do not mean it is morally right, consistent, constitutional, economically viable/most efficient or logical.

2. Some issues are all or nothing and if you are on the fence, you are in reality for it, 100%, all of it, in every aspect, even if in your mind you try to come up with some rationalization like “Well, I support it but only in the first trimester,” for rape, incest...

If the door is opened, it will get slammed wide open eventually and that is true in the US, Germany, France, Italy... and in the US for the individual states. As time went on, the rules for abortion become more lax and government even began funding it... The same is true with gun rights. You are either for gun rights or you're not, and the fence sitter is basically someone that feels good about himself but is for gun control, even though he wants to be liked by everyone, appear smart, and wants to say what feels and sounds good to both sides... Yes, what feels and sounds good... But is it consistent, logical, economically viable/efficient, moral, constitutional... is that what nature or history tells us happens? You won't hear any arguments based on anything... just appeals to feelings as you did.

When you start talking about “sensible” (whatever that is), and you never give one actual argument that is rooted in what is moral, constitutional, economic, natural, consistent or shows a historic trend etc. what you are really saying is that you merely have very strong feelings on this, and that any logic and reason (what is actually sensible) is not interesting to you.

When people argue using feelings, that is not logic, reason, moral, fair or consistent what they seek. People flee into the realm of feelings and fallacies like the MSM does all the time when their arguments are weak, when logic and reason is not on their side, when morality tells them it is wrong, when they know they are inconsistent, what they believe in is economically dysfunctional, unnatural, and historically hasn't worked.

Look at climate change, Covid, gun control... Lot's of feelings. Little on the actual facts. Why do you think that is? How do you argue for climate change using facts if the models are fake or proven wrong again and again. Do you really want to discuss correlation vs. causality as it pertains to climate change? Is a conversation about who is profiting (politically and economically) from all of this climate change nonsense a discussion “believers” really want to have? Are the contradictions and uncovered cheating and lies something the “believer” wants to discuss?

These are the sensible arguments for climate change, covid, or yes abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE

Why do you think the media digs up a 10 year old that got pregnant from rape? Sensible?

Your sensible sounds like emotional junk to me, sorry.