Me: there’s a fire in my house! Please abolish it!
Fireman: Ok, we’re ready! What are you going to replace it with?
Me: what
Fireman: The fire. What are you going to replace it with? Fire has a purpose, you know, you can’t just remove it. The combustion that powers your car engine, that’s fire. And the fire in my woodstove heats my house and keeps my family warm. Fire is doing what it’s supposed to be doing, and in the correct place, at the correct time.
Me: It’s destroying my home. Please abolish it.
Fireman: Do you even know what fire is LOL fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in a self-sustaining chemical reaction, do you REALLY think you can just abolish that? Do you even know what you’re talking about?
Me: I’m fine with it existing just not in my house right now.
House: destroyed
Fireman: Why didn’t you give me a valid replacement??? We could have helped you.
within your metaphor, “Abolish the fire in my house” ≠ “Put out that one fire in my house”.
How does that challenge the premise? I’m saying that the unequalness of the two entities support the premise. Understand?
No, I don’t. Because the unequalness does NOT support what you’re saying, at least not to anyone else. It comes across as a huge red flag that you’re making up a false equivalency to back up the ideal you’re trying to get people to argue with you on. Nobody’s gonna debate you on a topic that you can’t even seem to frame fairly.
