Ooh! Playing with big words! Are you sure you're cleared for that?
If you were to trouble yourself to LOOK at the question and its rhetorical thrust, you'd see that if it was suggesting anything it was suggesting that the terms of abuse are NOT used often.
One problem with your side is that you won't take yes for an answer. I say something complimentary and you sniff at it like a fussy cat to see if it contains some insult. In an effort to have civilized conversation I ask a simple question about an objective matter and I get slapped back.
So here I am questioning the notion that you guys go around gratuitously calling us names, and for that I get called a sophist.
"When I am for peace, they are for war."
It's good that you know what rhetoric is and that you think you know what sophistry is. But it's not enough. The rhetoric, if any, was attacking, by question, the notion that you guys call us lots of names or that we think you guys call us lots of names. Just don't try to get me to think that, having rebuffed a gentle overture, you are really men of peace.
Rhetoric upon rhetoric. Funny how the very next post showed the true rhetoric.