5 ms·

Your post did not even attempt to address anything I wrote. It was not an argument. Hoping I'm not fond of weekends is not an argument.

ironmagma 5y ago
It’s a challenge — poster is asking if you also oppose weekends, since that would be presumably required to make your argument consistent with other things unmentioned.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  A vague rhetorical question is not an argument even if the person who wrote it may have had some logic or data behind what they said that could be formed into a proper argument. It's just a lazy, way overused tool that is more often than not employed when no such sound argument exists. They can't type out of logical coherent opposition, so they throw out some vague snide kind of question that's supposed to look like a gotcha but really doesn't mean anything when you look at it. It's lazy and underhanded because it puts some of the burden back on the other person to refute it, at least on internet forums like this. The irony of the poster getting upset when I gave an equal-effort response! And if you think I would need to "oppose weekends" (whatever that means) to be consistent, then you are wrong about that too. What exactly is it you think I am trying to argue, and how would failing to "oppose weekends" make my argument inconsistent?
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, considering they likely started as a religious observance. Obviously the system that fostered their development allowed such benefits to be granted, but if they followed your model, they would not, and we might be working 7 day work weeks today as a result. Is that not bad?
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! So they expect me to guess and construct an argument for them, and then refute it? Rubbish. > Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, Why must one question that? My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with". So this is just a bad strawman. > considering they likely started as a religious observance. If we were to change topic completely and argue about the origin of 5 day working week and other workplace health and safety reforms, I really don't know enough of the history of it. I have no problems acknowledging and being thankful for good things that religion has brought (if religion was responsible for the weekend, great that people had the sense to take my position on the matter and not restrict the weekend to religious people). However I would be slightly curious why it happened to come about right around the time of rising power of the labor movement in the west, and not any other time in the several millennia of these religions before then. Maybe just a coincidence. But either way I don't really care, I like weekends and I don't want them restricted to people with particular beliefs, so that's +1 for my argument.
      - ironmagma 5y ago
        Generally speaking, when good things have to be imported from the past, that’s a sign the present is broken. The old things are still seen as good, so why couldn’t they be created today? Why should we not allow new advancements? If a religion has a good idea, people in that religion should be allowed to experiment with it. Maybe it will turn into something that can benefit society at large.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        These are all wild pot shots that really don't form coherent arguments against my position. And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. I mean, you're actually trying to equate giving everyone equal rights and protections under the law with not allowing new advancements. Sorry this is just stupid bad-faith arguing tactics. I'd be happy to come back and respond to something substantial but obviously I'm not going to keep going down this path.

ironmagma 5y ago

It’s a challenge — poster is asking if you also oppose weekends, since that would be presumably required to make your argument consistent with other things unmentioned.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
A vague rhetorical question is not an argument even if the person who wrote it may have had some logic or data behind what they said that could be formed into a proper argument. It's just a lazy, way overused tool that is more often than not employed when no such sound argument exists. They can't type out of logical coherent opposition, so they throw out some vague snide kind of question that's supposed to look like a gotcha but really doesn't mean anything when you look at it. It's lazy and underhanded because it puts some of the burden back on the other person to refute it, at least on internet forums like this. The irony of the poster getting upset when I gave an equal-effort response! And if you think I would need to "oppose weekends" (whatever that means) to be consistent, then you are wrong about that too. What exactly is it you think I am trying to argue, and how would failing to "oppose weekends" make my argument inconsistent?
- ironmagma 5y ago
  At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, considering they likely started as a religious observance. Obviously the system that fostered their development allowed such benefits to be granted, but if they followed your model, they would not, and we might be working 7 day work weeks today as a result. Is that not bad?
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > At the risk of putting forth someone else’s argument, I feel like it’s pretty easy to guess what they were saying. So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument! So they expect me to guess and construct an argument for them, and then refute it? Rubbish. > Because you were stating that no one should receive special benefits because of their religion, one must question how weekends could come about in such a system, Why must one question that? My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with". So this is just a bad strawman. > considering they likely started as a religious observance. If we were to change topic completely and argue about the origin of 5 day working week and other workplace health and safety reforms, I really don't know enough of the history of it. I have no problems acknowledging and being thankful for good things that religion has brought (if religion was responsible for the weekend, great that people had the sense to take my position on the matter and not restrict the weekend to religious people). However I would be slightly curious why it happened to come about right around the time of rising power of the labor movement in the west, and not any other time in the several millennia of these religions before then. Maybe just a coincidence. But either way I don't really care, I like weekends and I don't want them restricted to people with particular beliefs, so that's +1 for my argument.
    - ironmagma 5y ago
      Generally speaking, when good things have to be imported from the past, that’s a sign the present is broken. The old things are still seen as good, so why couldn’t they be created today? Why should we not allow new advancements? If a religion has a good idea, people in that religion should be allowed to experiment with it. Maybe it will turn into something that can benefit society at large.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        These are all wild pot shots that really don't form coherent arguments against my position. And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question. I mean, you're actually trying to equate giving everyone equal rights and protections under the law with not allowing new advancements. Sorry this is just stupid bad-faith arguing tactics. I'd be happy to come back and respond to something substantial but obviously I'm not going to keep going down this path.