The problem is that this statement directly uses categorical assertion that I'm too young or too illogical. If the statement was just "I do not want to have a conversation with you until you change your mind" it would be fine. But here it looks wrong.

BTW, even if the person says the Earth is flat, we cannot evaluate their age from it, even though we might be uninterested to argue. We could think they are illogical though. But using the same logic on moral topics is wrong to me.

@rus9384 I find that it is used in situations where the speaker is uncomfortable with admitting that they cannot continue a logical train of thought without assuming base axioms that you disagree with. However, they can rarely word it as such. Hence why I like to respond with wordings that encorage shaping the wording better.

I can see using this in moral topics. In fact, I find it even more applicable in the moral topics. There are many cases where it is simply not possible to enter a logical discussion without someone having sufficient experience or that it would take too long to bring them up to speed. As a hyperboic example, I could not explain the horrors of atomic war to a toddler. I don't care if the toddler is offended by this, it's just reality.

I added a bit more with a logical argument you can choose to assume from this wording. It's not always going to be a true interpretation of what they say, but I think it does okay.

But does a toddler need to assert that atomic war is bad? Any atomic bomb is unreachable for a toddler. In that conversation, however, it did not feel like an opponent understood something better than me. Probably, he was older. But that means he is more probably unfamiliar with what happens among younger people.

@CortAmmon Thus the only thing is a vacuous assumption? For example, if a believer says that I'm too young to accept God, I think they are commiting a severe fallacy.