Irrational: "Seat belts are killing babies!"
Rational: "Seat belts aren't killing babies they save thousands and thousands of babies each year."
Irrational: "Look! Here is an article where a baby strangled themself in a seat belt. See!"
Rational: "That's terrible that that happened, but I didn't mean that no baby had ever died from a seat belt, but that that it is a rare enough occurrence that it doesn't rise to questioning the overall efficacy of seat belts or make them dangerous or suggest that in an accident you are just as likely to die from the seat belt as to be saved from the seat belt."
Irrational: "But you said seat belts aren't killing babies and I have an example right here so I win!"
Rational: "I am happy to revise my statement if it is that important to you to 'seat belts save thousands of lives a year and every once in a while a terrible accident happens and a baby strangles themself' but I don't think that adds any value to the discussion of car and seat belt law. I think you have moved the discussion to a superfluous point to try and maintain a strange belief system and raise irrational fears or just to win a semantic argument. I am worried about babies and how to best save them."
HTP and BFart et al are having disingenuous conversations over and over again. They are not interested in finding solutions or agreement or honest discussion of problems, they want to promulgate irrational positions that assert tribal loyalty. There arguments can nearly always be reduced not to "here's a really good idea what do you think?" but instead to "nah nah nah I hate Liberals and will disagree with anything you say no matter how much sense you make."