That's not an argument.

Anything I don't like is an invalid argument

"The present-day concept of the relatively longer 'week-end' first arose in the industrial north of Britain in the early 19th century and was originally a voluntary arrangement between factory owners and workers allowing Saturday afternoon off from 2 pm on the basis that staff would be available for work sober and refreshed on Monday morning."

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.

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.

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?

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

> And you still have not had the decency to acknowledge or accept anything I wrote, or answer my question.

Sorry, there was just a lot to respond to and I picked what seemed like the most productive parts to reply to.

> So now you see how it wasn't an argument? You have to guess at what their actual argument!

Regardless, a rhetorical question isn't useless. Most of the famous paradoxes are rhetorical questions that sparked a lot of debate within a community. Simply because it is not an argument does not mean it's lazy or not to be responded to.

> Why must one question that?

I find this an odd question to hear on a forum full of skeptics... IMO, we should question everything. It's just the best way to engage with a world full of misleading appearances.

> My argument was not "religion is responsible for nothing that I personally like or agree with".

But if you derive benefit from something created by religion, it is somewhat hypocritical to want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people.

Strawman. I don't want to stamp out the ability of religions to create benefits for people.

At this point we're both wasting each other's time here so that's it from me responding to these dishonest comments.

This article is about a religion creating benefits for a person, but you don't want that to happen. How is that a dishonest comment?

I am also not following whatever point you are trying to make or how it relates to the person you are responding to. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your stance, but simply with your stance or idea not being presented clearly.

  > That's not an argument.

No, it's a conversation. And I hope you're not fond of "thou shall not murder" either.

That's not an argument or a conversation.

All right, then I'll rephrase as you seem inclined towards the former and not the latter.

On what axiom do you base the premise that citizens should not murder fellow citizens in your society?

What exactly do you think it would prove if I said the ten commandments is the basis? My point is that murder should be illegal regardless of the religion of the perpetrator or the victim, not that no laws are to be influenced by or borrowed from religion!