1. “Everyone Agrees with Me” I know what you’re thinking: Who the hell thinks that their opponents agree with them? A lot of people, actually. These are all theories that I’ve heard: Politicians who support gun rights don’t really believe in them. They’re just shills for the gun industry.
This sort of argument for people agreeing with you is rhetorically effective. Not only does it make it seem more reasonable because everyone agrees, but it also lets you attribute disagreement on the part of your opponent to conscious unethical choices. They don't care about fetuses because the pro-choice arguments are so effective, they just hate women. Of course, this isn't very persuasive if you are a non-woman hating pro-lifer.
I've noticed something that happens when people argue with a hypothetical group. They will find an apparent contradiction in two aspects of the groups beliefs. It'll be true that the beliefs will be held among members of the groups, but typically not by the same people.
I hear a lot of bad abortion arguments. I think that the pro-choice side genuinely believes in the rights of the mother, but they use arguments which are totally unpersuasive in other contexts. For example, most pro-choice advocates will appeal to a right to bodily autonomy, but still oppose things like organ sales, prostitution, recreational drug use, etc. I think that they genuinely believe in this right in one context, but somehow do not consider it in other contexts. Pro-choice advocates also sometimes make arguments like "what if the child is poor/a product of incest/disabled/etc." But would oppose the right to kill an infant that has any of those qualities. Furthermore, many progressive pro-choice advocates would take serious issue with even insisting that poor and disabled people's lives are worth less in other contexts.
Sometimes I wonder if we agree on *anything*. Sometimes I see something on the internet and think, those are all English words, but is that an English sentence? Some of this is Orwellizing, but some of it is just people being really lazy.
This sort of argument for people agreeing with you is rhetorically effective. Not only does it make it seem more reasonable because everyone agrees, but it also lets you attribute disagreement on the part of your opponent to conscious unethical choices. They don't care about fetuses because the pro-choice arguments are so effective, they just hate women. Of course, this isn't very persuasive if you are a non-woman hating pro-lifer.
I've noticed something that happens when people argue with a hypothetical group. They will find an apparent contradiction in two aspects of the groups beliefs. It'll be true that the beliefs will be held among members of the groups, but typically not by the same people.
I hear a lot of bad abortion arguments. I think that the pro-choice side genuinely believes in the rights of the mother, but they use arguments which are totally unpersuasive in other contexts. For example, most pro-choice advocates will appeal to a right to bodily autonomy, but still oppose things like organ sales, prostitution, recreational drug use, etc. I think that they genuinely believe in this right in one context, but somehow do not consider it in other contexts. Pro-choice advocates also sometimes make arguments like "what if the child is poor/a product of incest/disabled/etc." But would oppose the right to kill an infant that has any of those qualities. Furthermore, many progressive pro-choice advocates would take serious issue with even insisting that poor and disabled people's lives are worth less in other contexts.
This link is broken: fakenous.substack.com/p/do-religious-people-believe-religion. Not the actual link, but the hyperlink in the text. You can thank Emil Kirkegaard.
Sometimes I wonder if we agree on *anything*. Sometimes I see something on the internet and think, those are all English words, but is that an English sentence? Some of this is Orwellizing, but some of it is just people being really lazy.