Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
If the comment was sufficient we wouldn’t be here. It’s a bad analogy. Accept that it has flaws or make your case. Don’t keep pointing to the same insufficient comments as if the only answer is our lack of comprehension. Several people clearly disagree with it on the same grounds so maybe consider you’re wrong.
Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
Continue with that analogy. What would happen if that woman had no other option. Should she choose the nice guy, the chad or object to the choice being fostered upon her and choose nobody? And if she’s paired anyway with that person, should she then act as if it was her choice, or take actions to disengage from that person and destroy the system that caused these turn of events?
It fits. You say the analogy doesn’t fit because “we don’t have a choice”. I tell you to adjust the analogy so that the woman doesn’t have a choice either.
If the woman doesn’t choose any, who does she end up with? What should she do about it? You clearly see the absurdity when presented as an analogy, but you cannot see the similarity because the violence of the politicians is many levels removed from you.
I live in the gulf coast. The violence is not removed from me. It’s arguably worse here than anywhere else in the US, they test those insane policies here. You know nothing about me or my family.
Interesting you dropped off that SCOTUS discussion. You seemed pretty smug and sure there too.
That’s a good point actually. Arranged marriages existed for thousands of years. Women and girls were usually not given a choice, but even if when they were and chose the “lesser evil” it did nothing to end the tradition and evils of arranged marriage.
Non-participation is not the same as doing nothing. If she chooses to date neither, neither is in her life. If you do nothing, you still get trump or Biden. The analogy doesn’t hold.
And so I refer you back to my first comment in this thread
I have read it don’t be an ass. Make a point or don’t.
My point to this kind of comment is made in that post. We’re just looping at this point.
If the comment was sufficient we wouldn’t be here. It’s a bad analogy. Accept that it has flaws or make your case. Don’t keep pointing to the same insufficient comments as if the only answer is our lack of comprehension. Several people clearly disagree with it on the same grounds so maybe consider you’re wrong.
It fits. You say the analogy doesn’t fit because “we don’t have a choice”. I tell you to adjust the analogy so that the woman doesn’t have a choice either.
If you and I choose not to vote for Trump or Biden, who do we wind up with?
If she says no to both guys, who does she wind up with?
If the woman doesn’t choose any, who does she end up with? What should she do about it? You clearly see the absurdity when presented as an analogy, but you cannot see the similarity because the violence of the politicians is many levels removed from you.
And the point is she doesn’t have to have anybody. We do. We have 2 people and 1 of them will be here whether we like it or not. We can’t opt out.
I live in the gulf coast. The violence is not removed from me. It’s arguably worse here than anywhere else in the US, they test those insane policies here. You know nothing about me or my family.
Interesting you dropped off that SCOTUS discussion. You seemed pretty smug and sure there too.
You could adjust it to talk about arranged marriages instead.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
That’s a good point actually. Arranged marriages existed for thousands of years. Women and girls were usually not given a choice, but even if when they were and chose the “lesser evil” it did nothing to end the tradition and evils of arranged marriage.
That would make way more sense tbh