Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Eh, no. If I oppose every single instance of X then this implies that I oppose the existence of X. So there is really no difference in what follows from the two statements.
|
With all due respect, someone needs to buy you a book on usage.
The person in question didn't say, "I oppose X in every single instance." He said, "I oppose the existence of X" and suggested, as you've tried to do, that this meant "I oppose X." If you insisted on this sort of illogical and conveniently manufactured usage in a freshman English course in a strict college, you'd find yourself with a rather unsatisfactory grade.
Being opposed to something is polemical. Being opposed to the existence of a thing is advocating mandatory erasure.
If you say you're opposed to drinking, that could mean you yourself don't like to drink. If you say you're opposed to other people drinking, you might mean you either don't want them drinking around you or drinking at all. You'd be taking an intolerant position, but the degree of your intolerance would be vague until you got specific.
If, however, you say you're opposed to the existence of alcohol, there is no question as to your position. The person who opposes the existence of a thing is suggesting it should not exist in any form for anyone. Nonexistence doesn't simply affect one individual, nor are the words
oppose and
wish interchangeable.
If you were to say, "I wish alcohol did not exist," you might even be suggesting the idea in the abstract: "I dream of an ideal world in which people are so happy and relaxed there is never a need for alcohol." But if you
oppose the existence of alcohol, you're making an extremely clear and committed statement.
If you walked up to a seven-foot-tall mesomorph and said, "I oppose your right to exist," how exactly do you think your words would be taken and how would you expect that person to respond? And since you doubtless have the good sense not to say such a thing to such a person, why are you martyring everyone's attention span by peddling that nonsense here?
None of this strikes me as particularly honest. If the person who originally posted that statement doesn't like the idea of others reading erotica about beasts and werewolves, then they should have the guts to stand by their convictions and not use insincere provocation to disrupt a dialogue. And if that isn't what they intended to do, then they should apologize for stubbornly using words incorrectly and annoying other people.
I'd call that Machiavellian, but I can't because the strategies in
The Prince aren't dismal and obvious.
This argument doesn't work: "Because A, who advocates free speech, is questioning B's right to oppose something's existence in the legal sense, A is as intolerant as B and therefore hypocritical." It doesn't work because the positions of A and B aren't parallel no matter how hard or long anyone trolls or how many negative reactions they might collect.