| JWeinCom said: First off, the people you're quoting on UBI are not the same people as you're quoting on calling fetuses parasites. If you find a sufficiently large group of people, you're going to find contradictory opinions among them. It would only become hypocrisy if it were the exact same people making the arguments, or supporting both policies. This is a basic part to whole fallacy. Secondly, you're confusing metaphor and literal. The people are above are arguing that fetus are literal parasites (or pretty close at least). For argument's sake let's just agree that UBI reception equals metaphorical parasitism. That doesn't mean I have to have the same opinion on that as I do for literal parasitism. For example, children can easily be thought of as metaphorical parasites (in most cases). Tapeworm are a literal parasite. I have a very different opinion on how each should be handled. Is this hypocrisy? I would think not. This is an argument by analogy fallacy. Beyond the very abstract concept of one organism benefiting from another, these situations are so far removed from one another that it's ridiculous to suggest that an opinion on one should inform an opinion on the other. |
"First off, the people you're quoting on UBI are not the same people as you're quoting on calling fetuses parasites."
well they have not explicitly said so but i'm pretty sure that the vast majority of democrats in support of ubi are also in support of abortion and abortion at its very core is a process which treats unborn babies as if they are unwanted parasites
do you deny that?
"This is a basic part to whole fallacy. "
no that's not really true and i've addressed why above
"Secondly, you're confusing metaphor and literal. The people are above are arguing that fetus are literal parasites (or pretty close at least). For argument's sake let's just agree that UBI reception equals metaphorical parasitism. That doesn't mean I have to have the same opinion on that as I do for literal parasitism."
this has nothing to do with confusing literal and metaphorical
the people i quoted are using unborn babies as metaphors for parasites because and this is the most relevant part they take resources from another entity and restrict the bodily autonomy of that entity
i'm saying that a parallel can be drawn between this and when the same people argue that we need to take more resources from certain people and give those resources to other people causing a restriction in bodily autonomy in the first group of people as a result
i don't see how you can try to deny the clear comparison being done here, i can of course understand the motivation but the outright denial? that's surprising to me
"For example, children can easily be thought of as metaphorical parasites (in most cases). Tapeworm are a literal parasite. I have a very different opinion on how each should be handled."
that's great, but that's not really relevant to the argument i made since here you are showing different methods of handling seemingly similar situations whereas in my case i showed how the methods used (siphoning resources from the haves to the have nots) are similar in handling the situations i brought up
you essentially built a strawman, torched it and said "AHA! got you!"
"This is an argument by analogy fallacy."
it would be if you actually addressed what i posted instead of attacking a strawman
"Beyond the very abstract concept of one organism benefiting from another"
well that's your opinion, if you don't think the two can be compared well that's ok, we can agree to disagree
i personally think its pretty darn clear that there is an obvious correlation here
to reiterate, the baby needs resources from the mother to survive, however, this impacts negatively on the mother because she loses resources to the baby and her bodily autonomy is restricted
the poor according to democrats need resources from other people to survive, however, this impacts negatively on those people because they lose resources to the poor and their bodily autonomy is restricted(more work is required to gather resources for example)
you appear to be arguing that you can look at these two situations and not see the clear connection between them and that's ok
" these situations are so far removed from one another that it's ridiculous to suggest that an opinion on one should inform an opinion on the other."
well lets try to isolate the similarities between them for a minute ok?
1. Person cannot gather the resources needed to survive on their own
2. The person requires resources from another to survive
3. Resources are channeled from haves to have nots
4. Bodily autonomy is restricted in the haves as a result
differences
1. haves/have nots can be plural in one instance but are always singular in the other
2. ...
