• BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

        • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          My point to this kind of comment is made in that post. We’re just looping at this point.

          • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            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.

            • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              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.