Failed analogy.
It would work if they wanted to rename the gulf as "Mount America."
It would work if they wanted to rename the gulf as "Mount America."
This is like Bob changing his name legally to Chad.
It can, and does happen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali%E2%80%93Mount_McKinley_naming_dispute
This is not redefining the thing by changing the name. That would be calling it something other than a gulf, which it is, and demanding that everyone accept that it is now a different geographical feature.
Analogy is wrong. It doesn't work.
It can, and does happen:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali%E2%80%93Mount_McKinley_naming_dispute
This is not redefining the thing by changing the name. That would be calling it something other than a gulf, which it is, and demanding that everyone accept that it is now a different geographical feature.
Analogy is wrong. It doesn't work.
Yeah, it kind of is that, but that is a totally different argument.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
> surrender their objectivity
Well, no.
A name change is not the same as redefining something against objective reality.
If the government changes the name, then objectively that I the new name. This is not the same as redefining something as something it is not.
It's a naming dispute.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali%E2%80%93Mount_McKinley_naming_dispute
Well, no.
A name change is not the same as redefining something against objective reality.
If the government changes the name, then objectively that I the new name. This is not the same as redefining something as something it is not.
It's a naming dispute.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denali%E2%80%93Mount_McKinley_naming_dispute