-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion and Classism
- Thread starter ppp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abortion christianity sex
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's a choice they're making, they can demonstrably afford it.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Your dismissing a soundly reasoned argument, that was presented with supporting evidence, and offering just a bare denial, that's not really very compelling. If you want your denial to mean anything in a public debate, maybe explain why you think this, beyond subjective belief or confirmation bias from personal experience, and if you have any, then present some objective evidence to support it.
Even as an atheist I could make a first of that for a religion, though it would not of course represent objective evidence for a deity. Think people convinced to behave more altruistically because they hold a belief.
No... that is answering a question and history.
And, as with me, it was a choice I made and "affordability" is a perspective.
I don't think you are even on the same page in the answer that I gave or in the spirit and context that it was given.
Come to think of it, it wasn't even addressed to you.
Maybe you can reformulate a position that you want to address?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I was talking about your conclusion, not what you drew it from, or the context in which you presented it, and your conclusion looked like a post hoc ergo propter fallacy.
This type of fallacy is also a form of confirmation bias, often used to claim intercessory prayer has worked for example.
You are welcome to your viewpoint. I thought it was very applicable and just calling it a "fallacy" doesn't really refute my position.
That is the general way to not address that "affordability" is a perspective.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
It's not just my viewpoint though is it, unless you think I created logic, and I didn't just call it a fallacy, I very specifically said which fallacy you had used, and linked an explanation of the fallacy to support the claim, and yes of course demonstrating you had used a known logical fallacy would refute your claim, by demonstrating it to be irrational, by definition.
Not really, your own link showed they were making a subjective choice, and by any objective standard to claim a billionaire couldn't afford to have children seems dubious.
Afford
verb
- have enough money to pay for.
firedragon
Veteran Member
In this very forum, a hard atheist made the case that a poor woman walking several miles to get a bus to take the baby to see a doctor while her husband has no choice but to attend to the farm is poor, has child, because "they decided to".
Nevertheless I have never in my life heard someone saying this “if you can’t afford to have a kid don’t have sex” for any reason. Never heard it. Maybe it's more popular in your society.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
It's more popular here in North Carolina at least. I've heard it before
firedragon
Veteran Member
How bloody stupid. I think it's stupid. I could be wrong.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So it seems wholesale slaughter is something you support as long as you can claim the victim is less than human. I’ll not be joining you in that disturbing mindset.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
It's not a common argument but I've heard it a few times. It is a stupid argument I do agree. Very classist thing to say
Bathos Logos
Active Member
No, I didn't. Hence the reason I asked you if you thought I cared whether or not you were a fan of Christianity. I do not care. Not at all. You asked a question, and I answered it. The reason as to why "Religion" might be the first thought on someone's mind regarding the OP subject matter. I have a feeling you understood this entire time exactly why religion might be the first thing on someone's mind with this... but that you perhaps feigned ignorance in order to try and make a point about how it perhaps shouldn't be. But that would be you feigning ignorance, even as you knew what was going on the entire time.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You're ok enslaving people then, taking away their bodily autonomy, and letting them suffer, while granting rights to a clump of insentient cells you wouldn't give a sentient human being?
Oh look I can do hyperbole as well.
ppp
Well-Known Member
You choose melodramatic sophistry over responding to what was actually said. Well done.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Also, it won't work. Impractical. Maybe it is okay to say something like that to your younger brother. Sometimes we say some weird things to our younger brothers thinking it's advice.
But this is in my opinion really stupid. I don't think it's some classist thing. That doesn't compute with me.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So where am I wrong?
1. The person was invited to be there and consent was given (exception for rape and under aged incest)
2. The innocent invited guest in this killed at a rate of about one million per year in the USA. (Many of these were they could have lived if not one chopped them into pieces)
3. You are advocating for this.
What did I get wrong?