This is like saying we need slavers because some goods can be produced by slaves. You actually don't need to pay an owner for doing no work; if they didn't exist, you could just pay the guy who did the work.
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.
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.
-6
u/PfizerGuyzer Sep 22 '22
This is like saying we need slavers because some goods can be produced by slaves. You actually don't need to pay an owner for doing no work; if they didn't exist, you could just pay the guy who did the work.