You want your generalized term (barking) to be the central point then narrow to your difference (different barks).
Yours set the broad precedent of heat/fire being hot (theft being wrong) but not all heat being fire. I understood your intent, but what you’re literally saying here is that not all theft is piracy, which is true but irrelevant.
Per your own analogy, that’s not what you set up.
What you’d want to do is something like this
“All dogs bark, but not all dogs bark the same.”
You want your generalized term (barking) to be the central point then narrow to your difference (different barks).
Yours set the broad precedent of heat/fire being hot (theft being wrong) but not all heat being fire. I understood your intent, but what you’re literally saying here is that not all theft is piracy, which is true but irrelevant.
Wrong.
All fire is hot.
Not everything that’s hot is fire.
You failed to understand the analogy yet again.
I made no statements about the morality of piracy, I was just pointing out the false equivalency in your statement about “similar tokens”.
You equated wage theft with piracy somehow, and ownership with slavery I guess? I’m not even sure, your analogy was a mess.
So I broke it down for you and skipped the analogies in my reply, so as not to confuse the point you seem to be missing: Not all piracy is theft.
ez.
pz.
I don’t misunderstand you. I even acknowledged your intended point in my breakdown.
I never said “not all theft is piracy”.
I said “not all piracy is theft”.
Words need to be in a certain order to convey a specific meaning.
Is your primary language not English? You sound like you have a poor grasp on English.