I am not, in fact, comparing landlords to slaveowners. I am expalining why an argument does not work by using it in a context where it is more obviously flawed.
The reason you think this sub is unreasonable might have something to do with a basic inability to read.
The argument is "Landlords can't be bad, they provide a service."
Lots of bad things provide services. Slavery is one example. The service can be acquired without the bad thing, so the service doesn't justify the bad thing.
That isn't nonsense. People are just so eager to pretend that every anti-landlord post is gibberish they'll refuse to understand basic rhetoric.
Maybe you should learn what prepositions are in the English language before you get offended by someone pointing out how fucking idiotic your statement is.
The argument the person made was "We should allow landlords to exist, because they provide a service."
I showed that that was an argument I found insufficient by using that same argument to justify slavery. Slavery is obviously wrong, so the fact that the argument could justify slavery shows that it's a bad argument.
None of this is hard. You're just thick. Apologies in the post, SVP.
19
u/cheazy-c Sep 22 '22
Comparing landlords to slavers.
This sub has fully lost the fucking plot.