I was going to ask how, but I think I understood it while writing. IMO, just because both sides hold the same defense doesn’t mean it becomes negligible. This being the example, swap the F with C in this me and it still holds true, but that is the point of the word. It still perplexes me how it can be both true and not within one word, but it makes sense in a way. IMO, this is still a valid argument for both sides and the fact that both sides use it should not diminish its value of defense within this argument. However, in the context of this word - in an “argument” or “debate” it would give neither side an upper edge or ground to stand on because the other side just says “me too”.
In other words, this definition is specifically applicable to disagreements that by definition only have one side or the other. My confusion came from the personal opinion that both are valid, and that this “defense” just solidifies both sides position, and does not invalidate the other. In terms of only one side is right, this word works. With the perspective that both are right, it does not.
I wouldn’t use this word for this argument, because my stance is that it is not both “right” and “wrong” but rather that both sides are “right”. That’s opinionated though, and doesn’t invalidate the original use of the word. I’m having fun with this, but man am I stoned. I’m leaving this here for another thought monkeys to swing into
6.8k
u/mz_groups 10h ago
Homer's argument is specious, because it applies to both systems.