3 ms·

I thought you were playing devil's advocate and I wanted to take the bait. My apologies. Regardless, in a discussion, I don't the onus is on me expound on the

I thought you were playing devil's advocate and I wanted to take the bait. My apologies. Regardless, in a discussion, I don't the onus is on me expound on the numerous facets of the position right from the get-go. Abortion is a topic with many facets. You can't cover it all at once. I mean, yeah, you have to establish a position to start, but not all that much. I think rather than just saying 'without any justification' you could have more charitably asked a number of clarifying questions or could have taken an opposing stance to argue from. There was enough in my statement to squabble over.

Chris2048 6y ago
The discussion of abortion is off-topic, and likely to become the kind of dog-pile that overtakes the original thread. In general, the onus isn't on you to "expound the numerous facets" - but I think it is on you to expand on your own claims to the point they can be understood; for example - what is a "human right", are you talking about legal rights, or your own opinion; What is a "pregnancy" - do you include all trimesters, allowing abortion up until birth? etc etc etc Note, I don't really want to get into the discussion, I'm just pointing out no-one could understand you position without follow-up questions. > There was enough in my statement to squabble over. True, but the same can be said of any unsubstantial post - you want me to charitably ask for substance, but "unjustified" statements are a dime-a-dozen, and can easily flood a thread - It's just as easy from my perspective to down-vote and move on. Providing a fuller context in the first place, to me, proves greater good faith wrt wanting a good discussion, and a better guarantee the continuing the conversation will be productive.
- wcarron 6y ago
  You have made good points and I appreciate your response. I also don't really want this discussion. Your point about not overrunning the main thread is particularly applicable.

Chris2048 6y ago

The discussion of abortion is off-topic, and likely to become the kind of dog-pile that overtakes the original thread. In general, the onus isn't on you to "expound the numerous facets" - but I think it is on you to expand on your own claims to the point they can be understood; for example - what is a "human right", are you talking about legal rights, or your own opinion; What is a "pregnancy" - do you include all trimesters, allowing abortion up until birth? etc etc etc Note, I don't really want to get into the discussion, I'm just pointing out no-one could understand you position without follow-up questions. > There was enough in my statement to squabble over. True, but the same can be said of any unsubstantial post - you want me to charitably ask for substance, but "unjustified" statements are a dime-a-dozen, and can easily flood a thread - It's just as easy from my perspective to down-vote and move on. Providing a fuller context in the first place, to me, proves greater good faith wrt wanting a good discussion, and a better guarantee the continuing the conversation will be productive.

wcarron 6y ago
You have made good points and I appreciate your response. I also don't really want this discussion. Your point about not overrunning the main thread is particularly applicable.