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.
This person is suggesting that if we abolish the fire that’s burning the house down, we won’t be able to heat up food or stay warm in winter.
… Which is the entire point of the post. It is literally a parody of this style of rhetoric, in which the subject of abolition is compared to something strictly necessary, and shown to be not necessary, and often harmful. I don’t know if this person struggles with reading comprehension, but they read and recited the metaphor without any comprehension of its meaning. Stay in school kids
“Abolish the fire in my house” ≠ “Put out that one fire in my house”
There’s one of us who struggles with comprehension and it’s not me
You’re arguing against my position by challenging the metaphor… by saying the two entities are not the same. Honey that’s what metaphors are used for. To compare two different things. This is tragic.
They aren’t challenging the metaphor at all with their statement. They’re showing you that the entire premise is garbage, because within your metaphor, “Abolish the fire in my house” ≠ “Put out that one fire in my house”.
The metaphor is… Ok, I guess, if not a gross oversimplification, but your post and energy in the comments just scream “debate me bro” when it doesn’t seem like you’ve got the maturity for even a normal conversation. Like you maybe just found your first Ben Shapiro video or something.
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.