Witches VS Patriarchy

1158 readers

7 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

QueenMidna@lemmy.ca

682

We did (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 weeks ago by LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/witchesvspatriarchy@lemmy.ca

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this is the source of our disagreement. In my mind, the word "give" has at most a mild connotation of volition.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Interesting. So like whats the dividing line between 'being given something' and 'taking something'?

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

For me, you can't use 'give' if there was no action on the giver's behalf, but coerced action counts as action. Same with take -- you 'take' something only if you're capable of a 'take' action. So if you're in a coma, you can't 'take' anything offered to you (except in idiomatic phrases where action on the taker isn't expected, e.g. "to take abuse").

This is why I seriously believe that OP's image is controversial more do to a difference in our linguistic understanding of the word "give" than do to a differing understanding of the facts.

Edit: I think what may be happening here is the so-called "non-central" fallacy.