3 ms·
His argument was negating a true claim by playing a game of definitions. Regardless of how you cut it, pro-life is a minority view. Attempting to use shades of
by softcactus 4y ago
His argument was negating a true claim by playing a game of definitions. Regardless of how you cut it, pro-life is a minority view. Attempting to use shades of pro-choice to diminish that is not arguing in good faith. It's the argument equivalent of going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" while holding your finger in front of someone's face.
Ultimately though, what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned, which is a binary, and those who oppose Roe V. Wade are in a very clear cut minority.
- qweqweqwe90i1 4y ago
- softcactus 4y agoOnly 27% think Roe should be overturned. Roe only protected first 3 months (first trimester) except in extreme cases. Your statistics do not support Roe being overturned.
- overrun11 4y agoThere's no possible reading of the original comment where it is "objectively incorrect." Clarifying what is meant by extremely vague labels like "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" is far from a definition game. > what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned Exceptionally few people understand exactly what the implications of Roe are so this framing is useless.
- softcactus 4y ago> Exceptionally few people understand exactly what the implications of Roe are so this framing is useless. I'd like to hear why you think this. It's only a "useless" framing if you don't buy into the concept of democracy.