Me: It’s unfortunate that the legal system is geared toward wealthy people, and I agree that we need to do something to help level the playing field, however, it’s wrong to hire lawyer knowing that you will not be able to afford it. Even though it’s an unfortunate situation, it’s still stealing.
Other person: It’s good to know you’re in favor of forcing pregnancy on impoverished women.
Me: I am not. I think we should have something in place for situations like that, however, until those things are in place, using a service with no intention of paying is stealing. It’s not the doctors fault that your government does have any program in place to help pregnant women get abortions, so why steal from him?
Other person: We are done here, you’re a fucking sociopath and a hypocrite. Next time you say that a rape victim should have access to an abortion, I’ll call you a hypocrite.
I don’t get it? I understand that not everyone will agree with my morals and political ideas, however, I don’t think what I’m saying could be classed as sociopathic? Am I being a hypocrite?
You didn’t say anything sociopathic and I don’t know if you’re being a hypocrite or not because I don’t know your other views or what you would do in either of those situations.
The context of the conversation might help, it’s just some sentences out of left field to me right now. However, it doesn’t sound like you said anything sociopathic. Whether it was unreasonable depends on the point you were trying to make within the rest of the conversation.
It sounds like the other person thought you were saying that people shouldn’t have a right to legal representation if they can’t afford it, and made an analogy about equal access to abortion.
No, there is nothing “sociopathic” about expecting people to pay for services. I’m not really seeing how abortion has anything to do with it (nor how not providing free abortion to poor people is “forcing pregnancy on impoverished women” since pregnancy is not some completely random mishap that can only be stopped by abortion, given that consistent use of contraception and avoiding penis-in-vagina sex are both very effective methods of avoiding pregnancy).
Nowadays, many people - people who don’t actually know anyone who is a self-made rich person - have this idea that rich people only became rich because of total dumb luck and did nothing in particular to deserve to have their money. Sometimes, these people have the idea that rich people are all innately selfish and evil, unlike the poor people out there who they perceive as normal people like themselves and therefore can empathize with.
It is hard for people who have this view of the world to grasp that even rich people have families, bills to pay, and all the other normal expenses that other humans have, and that therefore harming their business is harming an actual human being. The idea that a rich person may actually have earned their money honestly through hard work and deserve to be compensated is very foreign to them.
I would say that if you’re dealing with someone like this, there is no real way to win in a debate where the person isn’t coming to the debate from a rational point of view in the first place.
I think, but am not sure, that the person ranting incomprehensibly about abortion is drawing an analogy based on the fact that poor women may not be able to afford an abortion. That is then applied to the principle that people shouldn’t take services they don’t intend to pay for, and the conclusion drawn is that impoverished women would under that principle be unable to get abortions.
The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that poor people often work damn hard too. I’ve never worked harder than when I was scraping by on three minimum wage jobs. I’m not slagging the rich here, but telling a day laborer working sixty hours a week that they don’t deserve healthcare and that Bob who sits in an office for forty, does because he works hard, is not going to be an easy sell.
In any case, we live in a society, and sometimes societies do messy, unfair, inconsistent things so that we don’t have to trip over dead bodies in the street or swat street urchins away as we board the subway.
For example, if I were charged with some spurious crime that I’m not guilty of, facing a large penalty if I lose, I would think it perfectly fine if I can ensure acquittal if I hired a high-priced lawyer, knowing I can’t pay for it, because the consequences of not doing that is worse
I’ve hired a lawyer a couple times and worked two years in an attorney’s office. It is the norm to discuss fees up front and hand over a retainer, then be prepared to pay-as-you-go from there unless a contingency agreement is in place. I suppose you could try to skip out on paying for a couple hours work beyond the retainer, but the grief would not be worth the couple hundred bucks. I too wonder where you find a lawyer who doesn’t get paid up front, aside from those working on contingency or assigned by the court.
I’ll also say that from personal experience and that of many friends in the '80’s, abortions were paid for up front as well.
I’m feeling there is a lot of lost context in this piece of a conversation.
This is probably it. And if you had said that, well, you guessed it might be ok for a poor woman to not pay the doctor who did her abortion, he’d have called you a hypocrite for making an exception. Hypocrite is his hammer.
He also sounds defensive. I’m guessing that he felt he was being attacked and called a thief, not that you necessarily did that, and he attacked back, losing track of his logic when he did.
