They aren't analogies.
They are examples of uses of the word "free".
You're not very good at this, are you.
They are examples of uses of the word "free".
You're not very good at this, are you.
Sponsored Links
Do you object to rules like that?
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 3,006
- Country
But some traders have better stalls & pay less rent,while some traders pay way too much rent on worse terms, which seems unfair.
Sponsored Links
Home produced goods have to meet the same directives regulations, etc.
Why allow imports to be outside of those directives etc?
And some get a rebate on their rent, and still want more.
Perhaps the market place uses a calculation of how much the income from the stalls is generated to apply the rent.
Those stalls making a greater profit pay more rent.
Perhaps the market place allows some stalls a low rent until they establish a demand for their produce.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 3,006
- Country
Or maybe it's "you scratch my back & I'll scratch yours"
I thought that was the freemasons?
you keep saying trade with the EU is tarriff free. whichever way you want to argue, that is only achieved by paying the EU a big lump of money. That means it is not free. You can argue there is no direct trade tarriff which businesses have to pay, but they have to pay indirectly through taxation......
Therefore there is a choice: tariff free trade (with the 'membership fee'), or pay the tariffs (and suffer the non-tariff barriers).
B
Bodd
There is nothing inherently wrong with using analogies to illustrate a point.
If those analogies are taken beyond the limits for which they were intended, they no longer become applicable analogies.
I don't know who or why the golf club analogy was introduced, I suspect it was to illustrate that if you stop paying the membership fees, you stop receiving the benefits, or something to that end.
Your extension of the payments and who pays what is slightly linked to the same theme, with the obvious lack of similarity that I indicated.
Therefore in that capacity, it is not a suitable analogy.
Extending that analogy into a discussion about mission creep is way outside of the original intended use of the analogy.
In general, in the original use of an analogy, the analogy may be applicable. But to extend the same analogy into areas for which it no longer suits the purposes, the analogy has outlived its usefulness.
To use an analogy
If one wants to explain feedback (acoustic) one might use the example of an echo, say in a valley.
If someone else then suggests that echos are no good for long distance secure communication, then the analogy has been taken way beyond its intended use, and its usefulness.
My point Would be. Why am. I paying a higher membership fee every month as that fella who drives the Duster.... And the new fella who's just joined
They play the same 18 holes.
Drink the same lager out of a similar glass to mine....
That's why I'm leaving your golf club!!
Why then do you not want Essex to leave the UK?
Is it because it might be a net beneficiary?
Is it because it might be a net beneficiary?
B
Bodd
Then should want my town to leave Essex. Then my house to leave my town?
Maybe I'll install outside toilet
Exactly. So why not?
B
Bodd
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
