AnathemicOne
Banned
I honestly did not expect this to be a thing I would do today, but I will assist with trying to argue the point of a cake idiom.
The idiom, as seems to be generally understood by everyone here, is simply referring to being unable to hold two mutually exclusive states at once.
Aside some minor wording quibbles I think it does it pretty well as the two states:
"I have a cake before me."
and
"I have eaten this cake and no longer have it before me"
Cannot exist at one time. Sure, we can get into unnecessarily specific questions about the idiom, such as technically having a part of the cake while you eat it, but honestly what's the point? The saying is simply using two naturally exclusive states: pre- and post-eating, and saying that you cannot have those two states exist at the same time.
I'll do you one better. Like I've stated earlier the common phrase of "you are having X" in terms of eating, equalizes "having" and "eating" as the same definition.
So "someone eating chicken" equates to "someone having chicken."
"Someone eating cake" equates to "someone having cake."
Going back to the idiom, someone "having their cake and eating it too" is a redundancy. And with the above examples in no way serves as a legitimate form of a fallacious example.