[user104658]

Oranges and bananas are both fruits? PLEASE. Utterly ridiculous. Let's see how they really compare.

A banana starts off green and turns yellow - whilst an orange is obviously ORANGE

A banana has an elongated, curved shape whilst an orange is roughly spherical, by all accounts.

The skin of a banana is smooth and almost has the texture of a soft leather, whilst an orange is puckered, hard and waxy.

You have to dig your nails into an orange to begin peeling, whereas a banana has a convenient peeling stick at the top.

Bananas have those weird long stringy bits down each side, while an orange is covered in a with "pith".

An orange divides into segments which can be eaten individually - a banana is more like one piece to be eaten from the top down.

Oranges are juicy, whereas bananas have a soft, squishy texture.

Bananas have a bland carby-ness about them whereas oranges are tangy.

You can make orange juice. You cannot make banana juice pls pls I dare you to try lolol.



Don't see how anyone could even begin to compare an orange and a banana! Let alone categorise them both under the same food group! So ignorant.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oranges and bananas are both fruits? PLEASE. Utterly ridiculous. Let's see how they really compare.

A banana starts off green and turns yellow - whilst an orange is obviously ORANGE

A banana has an elongated, curved shape whilst an orange is roughly spherical, by all accounts.

The skin of a banana is smooth and almost has the texture of a soft leather, whilst an orange is puckered, hard and waxy.

You have to dig your nails into an orange to begin peeling, whereas a banana has a convenient peeling stick at the top.

Bananas have those weird long stringy bits down each side, while an orange is covered in a with "pith".

An orange divides into segments which can be eaten individually - a banana is more like one piece to be eaten from the top down.

Oranges are juicy, whereas bananas have a soft, squishy texture.

Bananas have a bland carby-ness about them whereas oranges are tangy.

You can make orange juice. You cannot make banana juice pls pls I dare you to try lolol.



Don't see how anyone could even begin to compare an orange and a banana! Let alone categorise them both under the same food group! So ignorant.

I am utterly confused by your points. I get the fruit analogy, I'm not sure why you would work so hard to debunk it. It was perfectly valid.

Are you for or against people comparing Trump to Hitler? Because from your first few posts, you were implying that it was fine. Although that doesn't sit very well with you getting quite bent out of shape because people on here referred to terrorists as "monsters". So... is it okay with you to call Trump and Nazi? And is it not okay with you to refer to terrorists as "monsters". It seems like an overly complicated system you have for grading people's comments.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I am utterly confused by your points. I get the fruit analogy, I'm not sure why you would work so hard to debunk it. It was perfectly valid.

Are you for or against people comparing Trump to Hitler? Because from your first few posts, you were implying that it was fine. Although that doesn't sit very well with you getting quite bent out of shape because people on here referred to terrorists as "monsters". So... is it okay with you to call Trump and Nazi? And is it not okay with you to refer to terrorists as "monsters". It seems like an overly complicated system you have for grading people's comments.

My point is that two things dont have to be identical to come under the same heading,I.e. the argument that Trump is nothing like Hitler because he is not EXACTLY like Hitler is logically invalid. In other words, kirk pointing out the differences between the two men does not negate the fact that there are also similarities, any more than pointing out that bananas and oranges have differences stops either from being a fruit.

Trump is not "a Nazi". Trumps political platform and the rhetoric he uses to gain support has clear similarities to the emotive tactics used by Hitler; economic pride, xenophobia, scapegoating. It is valid to point that out and it is a valid concern, because it is a toxic brand of politics fuelled by fear and hatred. Some seem to believe that this is the same as simply saying "zomg trump is a Hitler Nazi oh no!!", and they seek to shoot this down (passively censor it) by bleating on about Godwin's law.

As for the final part, that's not complicated at all. My issue with terrorists being called monsters has nothing at all to do with it being a "bad term", my issue there is simply that monsters do - not - exist... And using the term "monsters" therefore distracts from the uncomfortable truth of what these people actually are. Nazis on the other hand, are unfortunately very real. It is a descriptive term for a wretched type of human, not an attempt to cognitively reject a human as "other".

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

My point is that two things dont have to be identical to come under the same heading,I.e. the argument that Trump is nothing like Hitler because he is not EXACTLY like Hitler is logically invalid. In other words, kirk pointing out the differences between the two men does not negate the fact that there are also similarities, any more than pointing out that bananas and oranges have differences stops either from being a fruit.

Trump is not "a Nazi". Trumps political platform and the rhetoric he uses to gain support has clear similarities to the emotive tactics used by Hitler; economic pride, xenophobia, scapegoating. It is valid to point that out and it is a valid concern, because it is a toxic brand of politics fuelled by fear and hatred. Some seem to believe that this is the same as simply saying "zomg trump is a Hitler Nazi oh no!!", and they seek to shoot this down (passively censor it) by bleating on about Godwin's law.

As for the final part, that's not complicated at all. My issue with terrorists being called monsters has nothing at all to do with it being a "bad term", my issue there is simply that monsters do - not - exist... And using the term "monsters" therefore distracts from the uncomfortable truth of what these people actually are. Nazis on the other hand, are unfortunately very real. It is a descriptive term for a wretched type of human, not an attempt to cognitively reject a human as "other".

People can choose to call other people monsters even if they are not literally monsters. They can choose to call them animals, even though they are not literally animals. I can't see why you would be so concerned about the syntax of other people's comments. Terrorist, in my book, ARE monsters. Figuratively, not literally.

Trump is not a Nazi and anyone comparing him to a Nazi needs to look a little harder into what a Nazi actually is.

Also, if people mention Godwin's Law it's for a reason. The fact that you consider it to be "bleating" is neither here nor there.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

People can choose to call other people monsters even if they are not literally monsters. They can choose to call them animals, even though they are not literally animals. I can't see why you would be so concerned about the syntax of other people's comments. Terrorist, in my book, ARE monsters. Figuratively, not literally.

Trump is not a Nazi and anyone comparing him to a Nazi needs to look a little harder into what a Nazi actually is.

Also, if people mention Godwin's Law it's for a reason. The fact that you consider it to be "bleating" is neither here nor there.

So it's ok to describe someone as a monster, although they are not literally a monster.

It's OK to describe someone as an animal, although they are not literally an animal.

But if you describe someone using the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi", literally or otherwise, BZZT BZZT BZZT ALARM ALARM GODWIN GODWIN.


Is that about right?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So it's ok to describe someone as a monster, although they are not literally a monster.

It's OK to describe someone as an animal, although they are not literally an animal.

But if you describe someone using the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi", literally or otherwise, BZZT BZZT BZZT ALARM ALARM GODWIN GODWIN.


Is that about right?

monster and animal are generic terms

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

monster and animal are generic terms

Hitler is too though now, have you never heard anyone refer to someone as a Little Hitler....not actually properly comparing them to Hitler but just to mean he's a bit Power mad?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So it's ok to describe someone as a monster, although they are not literally a monster.

It's OK to describe someone as an animal, although they are not literally an animal.

But if you describe someone using the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi", literally or otherwise, BZZT BZZT BZZT ALARM ALARM GODWIN GODWIN.


Is that about right?

I'm wasting my time here.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm wasting my time here.

You are, yes.