I admit to being "snarky" in my post (Dishonest: not a chance!). Notice I said "can" be abused, not "is" being abused. My comment was not directed at anyone in particular; rather a general observation. Trane also commented on downvoting without a response. It's one thing to "downvote" for irrelevance, fallacious reasoning, trolling, etc., but, "downvoting" based on disagreement is not a very high watermark. Not to say that I have some crystal ball that allows me to know, but patterns are relatively easy to discern. I, for one, am not that concerned with being "downvoted", as it proves someone read my babble.
I stand by my observation that Trane brought up a valid criticism. Valid in the sense that it's worth considering; whether it is correct is, as far as I can tell, yet to be determined.
Excluding the irrelevancies, the two major attacks on Trane's critique are: 1. Opposite and negation are the same. The secondary defense of this position is that of context. UPB's position (as presented by some members, not from Stefan) is claimed to not require a specific definition. 2. Arguing against UPB proves UPB.
I will tackle attack #2 first. As I stated previously: Any theory that claims that disagreement with said theory proves the theory, is guilty of, at the least, circularity. This form of argument is very, very old; but, it is still fallacious. A theory must stand on its merits, and how well it conforms to reality. Yes, I am aware of the potential for erroneously applying physical theory to human action, but, "merits" and "reality" are equally applicable to both.
As for attack #1: This has been, adequately, covered in this thread. Not-giving is not the same as taking. The opposite of giving, is taking. What about: not doing anything. This argument is an either-or fallacy: If you're not giving, you're taking. Splitting the horns of the dilemma is rather simple.
For the secondary position (that of context), the "coma test" is quite clear. If "giving to charity" is presented as a positive obligation, the "opposite" would be "taking" from charity. The failure to "give", or, to "take" would then be neutral in this artificial scenario. Claiming that the "coma guy" is acting in opposition to the obligation is a mangling of definitions. "Coma guy" is doing nothing, how can his lack of activity be used as a proof of anything.
Before attacking me for things I have NOT said:
1. I have NOT said that UPB is wrong. (Neither did Trane)
2. In fact, I agree with the overall idea of UPB.
3. I do not, blindly, adhere to anyone's ideas.
4. Valid criticism is worth considering.
5. Anyone who thinks their ideas are "beyond" criticism has fallen into the trap of the Randians.
When I, "snarkily" write about people's emotionality, and the first response is an emotional tirade, it tends to prove my point.