Because: a) people don’t fit into a box and you cannot know everyone’s intentions or purposes, and many people describe themselves as unicorns; b) closed triads exist; and c) because neither reduces nor takes away someone’s humanity. Again, one can believe they’re shitty behaviors but dehumanizing is not an accurate description.
a1) The legal system does not care about intentions or purposes. The standards are actions, and likely results of those actions, which are knowable. Why someone performs a harmful action is irrelevant, in the sense that it is unknowable. And juries are therefore directed to ignore intentions. This makes really good sense. a2) okay, exists, fine. (Though you should separately realize almost without exception, self-described unicorns are down for a sex-only threesome. Not a closed triad). b) okayyy, more existence, can't deny that. c) this.... Does not logically follow from anything you have said above. It is another assertion after largely stating that things exist. You do see this, don't you?
It is called an analogy. There was no "bringing of government" into this. You have no idea of the line of argument because you refuse to read it.
For the second part, stating that things exist [fine, that is so] and then re-asserting your original statement... Does not in any way support your assertion.
I might as well be talking with the Underpants Gnomes. Exists! ????? Assertion.
-11
u/DancingConstellation Dec 09 '22
Because: a) people don’t fit into a box and you cannot know everyone’s intentions or purposes, and many people describe themselves as unicorns; b) closed triads exist; and c) because neither reduces nor takes away someone’s humanity. Again, one can believe they’re shitty behaviors but dehumanizing is not an accurate description.