You're generally an a-hole, but I'll back you up somewhat. This is exactly what people like
@Daytontiger are doing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#:~:text=The motte-and-bailey fallacy,(the "bailey").
The
motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the
motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of
argument and an
informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions with similar properties, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").
[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.
[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey hasn't been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)
[4] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte)
They also believe in the "law of merited impossibility," which can be summed up like this, "there's no chance that this policy I like will cause any of the bad consequences you're afraid of, but when it does cause those consequences, you bigots will deserve it."