o_O.Q said:
"can you quote me directly where i said that?" Yes. "no i don't think that's a good way to assess this" did you read this at all and comprehend it? why did you ignore the part afterwards that actually addresses my point of view? "You can indeed use is without equating things. Which was exactly the point I was making. " and a point i never implied that i disagreed with so its a bit strange that you'd make the point to begin with "You have to look at the context. " not in cases where someone is using "just like" since its not an equation but a comparison the definition of literal language is as follows "Literal language means exactly what it says" what is the context for the development of a baby in the womb? and what is the context for the development of a parasite within the body? "people have a choice when it comes to paying taxes? how do you get out of it?" Never said that. This is what happens when you pull one sentence out of a paragraph without context. " My point of view it that they have a choice. They do not have to engage in any particular activity as a direct result of a UBI increase or any other tax. " how do you pay taxes without working?
"They can choose whether or not they want to work more hours. " and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument? |
1. Yes, I read what you said. Which seemed like dodging the actual question. So, please clarify for me. Can one support abortion without thinking of a fetus as a parasite? A simple yes or no will suffice.
2. I'm sorry, but you're just showing yourself to be profoundly ignorant on how the English language works. If I say, "you have the Switch with the red and blue Joycon just like me", "your twin looks just like you", "these taste just like McDonald's fries", "I have a bag just like that one", or "I'll pay for you just like I did last time". These are all literal statements that use the phrase just like. All of these phrases mean exactly what they say. Having just like does not magically make something metaphorical. You seem to want to just take sentences out of context, both with the articles and with these posts, but that's just not how reading works.
An equation is a form of comparison. It is comparing two things and finding them to be equal. I'm not sure what you're on about there.
By context, I obviously meant the context of the writing. Not the context of a fetus. That's just a weird concept.
3. "and allow their standard of living to collapse as a result... and you think this is a sensible argument?"
Yes. It's a sensible argument for why the two situations are different. There is a difference between being forced to do something and being compelled to do something by circumstance. Banning abortion forces women to carry a fetus to term. To use their body in a very particular way they may find objectionable, to risk serious bodily harm, etc.
Raising taxes gives people a choice, based on how severe the increase is (you're assuming standard of living will collapse, but that may or may not be the case). They can choose to work the same amount if the money is not important to them. If they do decide it's worth working more, they have a choice of any number of ways they can go about earning the money, which may or may not involve working more, (they can also demand a raise, switch jobs, look for a more profitable company, etc.), may or may not involve bodily risk, etc.
All of which is not to say that UBI is a good idea (I'm undecided on that) but that it is very different from a ban on abortion. The idea that one's opinion on one matter has to inform their opinion on another is frankly stupid. It's an argument by analogy fallacy.
