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.
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.
Arranged marriages are still a thing. My Indian friend was quite happily a bachelor at 23 until his parents presented him with a choice of three brides or be disinherited and kicked out if the family business and family home compound. He traveled to India to meet his choices and returned married. I’m not sure either of them are happy, but they are parents. That’s got to be good for their child, right?
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.
If she has the same lack of choice, she should absolutely choose the lesser evil for now and do what she can to rectify the situation after. She can bide her time with the “nice guy” while devising a plan of escape. If she gets stuck with the the abuser, she very well may not survive long enough to make the attempt.
You’re right, it doesn’t differ from what we should do: mitigate damage now to buy time to develop more meaningful solutions.
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.
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable. I’m still struggling through plenty of it, with no clear answers. I acknowledge it, and also acknowledge at this late age, my imaginative abilities have atrophied, significantly. :-/
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.
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.
Arranged marriages are still a thing. My Indian friend was quite happily a bachelor at 23 until his parents presented him with a choice of three brides or be disinherited and kicked out if the family business and family home compound. He traveled to India to meet his choices and returned married. I’m not sure either of them are happy, but they are parents. That’s got to be good for their child, right?
That would make way more sense tbh
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.
Again, assume she has the same lack of choice. What should she do? Why does that differ from what we should do?
If she has the same lack of choice, she should absolutely choose the lesser evil for now and do what she can to rectify the situation after. She can bide her time with the “nice guy” while devising a plan of escape. If she gets stuck with the the abuser, she very well may not survive long enough to make the attempt.
You’re right, it doesn’t differ from what we should do: mitigate damage now to buy time to develop more meaningful solutions.
I’m just saving all these golden takes.
Good on you, it’s never too late to learn.
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.
The fact that you’re continuously dodging the questions is not lost on me
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable. I’m still struggling through plenty of it, with no clear answers. I acknowledge it, and also acknowledge at this late age, my imaginative abilities have atrophied, significantly. :-/
I didn’t dodge questions. Some of us critiqued your shit analogy and you got butthurt. That’s what happened here.
Have a good one mate. Last word is all yours - I’m sure it’s very important to you.