"Dogs in Heaven? Pope Francis Leaves Pearly Gate Open"

[Silent3]

203. How is my commenting on what you stated as a belief any more a form of "pushing"...

...than your original statement of a belief?

If the supposed rules of proper etiquette are that you get to say what you want, and that's somehow either a positive (or at worst, neutral) thing to be doing, but my disagreement is "pushing", that would create a special sphere of rhetorical protection for your beliefs, and disadvantage my disbelief in public discourse.

Why the hell should I be expected to happily go along with rules like that?

You also don't seem to understand what "poisoning the well" means. That's about attempting to discredit a rhetorical opponent him or herself as a person, it's not about anticipating particular bad arguments that person is likely to deploy.

Why those arguments I anticipated are poor arguments should be obvious. You really think I don't have explanations why they're bad?

Suppose someone posts they believe Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States.

Would you hold anyone who would post against that to the standards that they have show a good reason to "care" about what someone else thinks about presidential history?

Would the person who posts "Sorry, it was George Washington!" (or John Hanson, under the Articles of Confederation!) be obligated explain why it's "their business" what the first poster thinks about presidential history?

Would the person be obligated to prove some substantive harm is caused by allowing the comment to go unchallenged?

If those questions wouldn't be relevant in that discussion, why should they be relevant here? There either is or is not a heaven, it either does or does not contain dead cats, and while issues of "care" and "business" and "harm" might play into some imagined system of etiquette (conveniently bending in your favor, of course) about what gets discussed and how it gets discussed, the meaning of terms like "heaven" and the probability of the correctness of statements about such things as heaven are not in the slightest contingent upon my motivations to discuss these issues or your desire to establish self-serving rules of engagement for the discussion of these issues.