It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The original post's point was that someone's taxes should not be used to fund things that violate their beliefs.Vaulk said:This falls under the fallacy of inconsistency and is a false equivalency. The two subjects that have been stood side by side are incomparable in that they share more inconsistencies than similarities and serve as a false or erroneous representation of logic and rationale. Waging War in the case of the United States is not similar to committing one's unborn child to death nor is the redistribution of wealth from a Religious demographic for the cause of abortion similar to the redistribution of wealth from any demographic in the United States for the cause of funding the Military.
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
In any case, abortion should indeed not be free. Abortion, while I disagree with the practice wholly, is a non-essential medical procedure and to provide it for free suggests a total subsidization of the service from the American taxpayer for something that, in the vast majority of cases, is not life threatening. We can argue all day about the absolute minority of cases where rape, incest, underage pregnancy is the cause or we can discuss the vast and overwhelming majority of the cases in the United States (Where sex education is better and more prominent that it has ever been) where the simple cause of the pregnancy is "Oops I didn't mean to get pregnant while willingly engaging in the act of reproduction".
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 16%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The OP Stated that their Religious beliefs were the premise for their conclusion that they should not have to pay for Abortions for other people.
Cameron responded by offering:
While the statement comes off as clearly sarcastic, it is taken as an attempt at mocking the OP's premise by presenting the same premise for justification only changing the topic to War and the Military in an attempt at showing how the logic doesn't work. In this case, while it's not direct, a clear assertion of equivalence has been made by Cameron and his argument becomes subsequently a logical fallacy as the OP's topic and the topic Cameron has used are incomparable but presented as if they are.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I'm not sure how long you served in the Military however, funding the Military is not funding "Murder" as you've clearly asserted. However this is a good example of a false equivalency again, one is Abortion...one is War...neither are comparable.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Then I'll kindly ask for your premise on this matter. I understand what you're saying, I understand what the OP said and I understand what Cameron said. So how did you reach the conclusion that a Religious preference to not financially support Abortion is the equivalent of a Religious preference to not financially support the Military AND a subsequent requirement to:
You've successfully identified yourself as a defender of Cameron's statement here and you made it crystal clear:
And so I'm ready and willing to hear how you've reconciled the equivalency of a Religious preference against financially supporting Abortions and a Religious preference against financially supporting the U.S. Military as a whole and a total and complete disbandment of the Military as a result of Cameron's religious beliefs.
Thank you in advance for your participation.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
I respect all Religious groups' preferences in regards to participation or support for certain things. There are limits of course. The topic of the debate here isn't really about whether or not someone CAN participate but rather...whether or not aspects of participation can be forced upon someone when those aspects violate their Religious practice.
From my limited point of view I don't really see this issue as a Religious matter. We could probably all agree that in the rarest of rare cases of abortion being caused by rape, incestuous relationships, statutory rape and in cases where the pregnancy stands as a significant medical risk (Life or death) to the Mother then (While still borderline) it's acceptable to expect tax funded healthcare services to step in and see to the Mother's need for abortion. No one asks where the funding for a rape kit comes from do they? Of course not, it's just expected that no one will take issue with the tools, equipment and services that are necessary to see to it that, in these rare cases, the victim is taken care of.
That said, we could also all probably agree that the vast, vast, vast, vast overwhelming, staggering majority of abortions are based upon (While simplified) "I didn't mean to get pregnant". In these cases...I'm afraid that in the United States where sex education is higher than it has ever been before...there is simply no excuse for this. Irresponsibility, poor decision-making, actions without thought to consequence for something that's been causing pregnancy since the dawn of Human Beings is not something I personally think should be paid for with tax-payer dollars.
TL;DR: In rare cases of a victim needing an abortion...sure. In cases where people are stupid with their choices...absolutely not.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
What if I believe in an alien God that states that a modern vehicle is every person's natural right? I can come to a car dealership, pick a $200,000 car and say, "My religious beliefs state that I do not have to pay for this car". According to your logic, the dealer should give the car to me for free, based on my beliefs. I just single-handedly destroyed car business, making it impossible to generate profit by manufacturing and selling cars.
You would have to present a more realistic argument, than "It is against my religious beliefs", in favor of reducing your tax burden. A belief is a belief, it does not exist outside of you and it does not affect the world, including other citizens, in any way. While the US does have a clause giving certain benefits to people based on their religious views, there is an opinion that it is a very outdated clause and should be abolished in the modern world. You being a Christian should not give you any privileges that non-Christians do not have.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me demonstrate Cameron's argument. I'll begin by writing the OP's:
1. Abortion violates my religious beliefs.
2. I should not have to fund things that violate my religious beliefs [with my taxes].
3. Therefore, I should not have to fund abortion [with my taxes].
Cameron's response was the following:
1. The military violates my religious beliefs.
2. I should not have to fund things that violate my religious beliefs [with my taxes].
3. Therefore, I should not have to fund the military [with my taxes].
As you can see, there are no "false equivalencies" being made here. Cameron was in no way trying to say the military is comparable to abortion; he was simply replacing one concept with another in the same argument to demonstrate a flaw.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
You've failed to include the critical portion of Cameron's argument that solidly rests it as a false equivalency. Cameron said: Cameron's conclusion that the United States as a whole must completely unravel and dissolve the U.S. Military as a whole solely because of his Religious beliefs and his alone is...well it's absurd and doesn't make any sense. His attempt to "Replace one concept with another" as you've so clearly stated has resulted in two incomparable things being stood side by side. The OP is not advocating for the complete removal of Abortion in the topic...she's stating that she shouldn't have to pay for it. Whether or not she's wrong is irrelevant in regards to Cameron's attempt to "Replace one concept with another" as he's gone far outside what would be considered a rational comparison.
If you disagree then I'm going to need to hear you try to reconcile the comparison between "I shouldn't have to fund things that violate my religious beliefs" and "The United States as a whole must completely disband the U.S. Military solely because of my Religious belief".
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The problem is, the federal tax redistribution is performed by centralized authorities. Cameron pays taxes, and the taxes are spent on the military - hence, regardless what what Cameron wants or does not want to pay, the current system of military funding forces him to pay. His argument probably was a bit exaggerated, but the principle is still there: the current military organization in the US is incompatible with the principle "My beliefs make me unwilling to pay for X, so I do not have to pay for X". So, indeed, the US military the way it is organized now has to be disbanded, if the OP's logic is to be followed consistently.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Following Cameron's logic, the U.S. must completely disband the Military for his religious preference and his religious preference alone. Mind you that his logic is not that everyone feels this way...it's his religious preference alone that determines that the Military must be disbanded....and you're in agreement that this specific statement from him is comparable to the OP's argument that She (Exclusively) shouldn't have to pay for something that violates her religious preference? So then I'll ask you as well, please, how is it that you're reconciling these two things?
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
1. Cameron pays federal tax.
2. Federal tax funds the US military.
Hence, Cameron pays for the US military.
If Cameron's religious beliefs are to void his responsibility to pay for the US military, either 1 or 2 has to become false. So there are two possible scenarios:
1. (I had not considered this one.) Cameron should not be required to pay federal tax.
2. The US military has to be reorganized in order to not be funded from the federal tax. The scope of such a reorganization would be enormous, hence effectively would lead to disbandment of the US military in its current form.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1. Cameron isn't only person in the United States that pays FICA
2. FICA does pay for the Military...but not just Cameron's
3. Cameron is not the only person who pays for the U.S. Military.
4. Hence, disbanding the U.S. Military because Cameron's Religious preference clashes with the ideology of Waging War does not stand up to scrutiny. Even assuming that he's right, that Cameron shouldn't have to financially support waging War...this doesn't somehow logically equate to disbanding the Military.
A. The U.S. Military doesn't strictly wage War.
B. Medical Professionals don't strictly provide abortions.
Therefor 1). Concluding that the entire Military should be disbanded because you don't support waging War is 2). The equivalent of concluding that all doctors should be fired because you don't support abortions.
Abortion is against my Religious beliefs Waging War is against my Religious beliefs
I should not have to pay for other people's abortions The entire Military should be disbanded
I'm honestly baffled at how anyone...anyone could possibly see this as a legitimate comparison.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 51%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra