By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 19 May 2019
Edit Thread
o_O.Q said:
JWeinCom said:

1.  So... then you view the fetus as a parasite?  Because you've said that you support a right to abortion.  

2.  If I said "these taste just like McDonald's fries" in reference to crackers, then I wouldn't be making a metaphorical statement, I would be making a weird and inaccurate statement.  Unless they made McDonald's fries flavored crackers or something. 

If I were talking about some other kind of fries, like fries I made at home, that would be a valid and literal comparison between two different things. At any rate, I'm not arguing that just like can't be used for a metaphor.  I'm arguing that it's not always the case, as you've been insisting. 

"as i already said comparisons between objects that are not the same cannot be literal comparisons"

Ummmmmmmmmm... what? Yes they can.  We compare objects that are not the same all the time.  That's usually the purpose of comparisons.  A tiger is bigger than a lion.  Ice is colder than water.  Whiskey is more alcoholic than beer.  Chocolate tastes better than cabbage.  A car is more expensive than a pack of peanuts.  Hydrox are just like Oreos.  Hey Arnold's head is shaped just like a football.  A clementine is just like a small orange.  A kiwi has vitamin C just like an orange.  The impressionist sounded just like Whitney Houston.  The Playstation Move is just like a Wiimote.  These are all comparisons between different objects and they're all literal.

This is getting pedantic because you keep demonstrating that you're really confused on this subject.  I'm sorry, just like does not necessarily indicate a metaphor.  I've given you about a dozen examples of it being used in a literal sense. 

3.  I honestly don't know the mechanics of a UBI and how it would work.  Which is the main reason I'm undecided on it.  It it's a tax on the super wealthy it might not necessarily raise taxes on an individual who has to work by all that much.  Which was really not the main point I was saying, which you completely blew by.  There is a big difference between raising a tax on people and banning them from being able to do something to their body.  Just not nearly the same. 

"So... then you view the fetus as a parasite?  Because you've said that you support a right to abortion.  "

its quite interesting to me how despite me asking you like 3 times at least you can't answer the question

"Ummmmmmmmmm... what? Yes they can."

i was referring to what i was speaking about previously that you conveniently ignored

"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?"

you've been spending this whole discussion moving away from your initial claim about babies and parasites to have an argument over linguistics which i'm not ashamed to say i haven't studied for a fairly long time

"I honestly don't know the mechanics of a UBI and how it would work."

so why have you been pretending that you do for the whole discussion?

 

" It it's a tax on the super wealthy it might not necessarily raise taxes on an individual who has to work by all that much."

and then they move their operations to another country and then you're fucked even more since you've then lost all the jobs they provided

"There is a big difference between raising a tax on people and banning them from being able to do something to their body. "

even if the taxes are so high that they don't have the money to do things to their body? suppose i want to put in extra large breast implants but i can't because all of my disposable income is being sucked away by taxes?

1.  I think it's an human in its early stages of development.  I don't see how it's relevant to the conversation, but there's my view of it.

So now, do you believe a fetus is a parasite, or do you believe it's possible for one to support abortion without holding that view?  Cause that's directly related to the conversation since your whole contention of hypocrisy relies on people who support UBI viewing fetuses as a parasite.

2.  Go back to my very first post.  I mention literal vs figurative right there.  I've kept talking about it, because you've continuously made baffling claims to support your contention that the articles are not talking about a fetus as a literal parasite.  

To get back on topic, reread the article you excerpted.  

"In fact, the biological definition of "parasite" fits the fetal mode of growth precisely, especially since pregnancy causes a major upset to a woman's body, just like a parasite does to its host. I'm not trying to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word parasite; in fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this would include most pregnancies. However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her consent[13] - if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated. "

 If you read this passage as anything but literal, then you suck at reading.  If you want to pull out two words from the paragraph and claim that means it's all metaphor, then you suck at reading and logic.  You may disagree with it, but it is beyond question that the author regards the fetus as a parasite.  

To go back to my original claim, the articles above are talking about how you should deal with a literal parasite (in their view).  The arguments below are about how to deal with a metaphorical (in your view) parasite. It is not at all hypocritical to have different views on how to treat them.  

3.  Yes, even if the taxes are so high they don't have the money to do things with they want with their body.  You still have the right to get the implants.  There is no legal impediment to doing so.  If you are able to earn the money, you'll be allowed to do so.  If you do it, neither you nor the doctor will be punished. Making it indirectly more difficult for someone to do something is not the same as directly banning something, or enforcing harsh penalties on it.  

That may be a good reason not to support UBI, but it is not the same thing as banning a particular action.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 20 May 2019