You are speaking to the outrage crowd. Really hard to reason with them.
They reverse the burden of proof.
If they find an issue, they point it out and imply that there is a solution that people don't want to take.
They don't consider any nuances: magnitude, scale, proportions, cost/benefit, margins of error, the concept of diminishing returns, game theory, etc. Hell, half the time they will comment without even reading an article. They just read title and then pull out a speech based on the topic of the title.
Instead of them having to advocate for their position with pros and cons and facts, they put you on the defensive with innuendo, distorted comparisons and other sophist techniques.
They reverse the burden of proof.
If they find an issue, they point it out and imply that there is a solution that people don't want to take.
They don't consider any nuances: magnitude, scale, proportions, cost/benefit, margins of error, the concept of diminishing returns, game theory, etc. Hell, half the time they will comment without even reading an article. They just read title and then pull out a speech based on the topic of the title.
Instead of them having to advocate for their position with pros and cons and facts, they put you on the defensive with innuendo, distorted comparisons and other sophist techniques.