Popping in your guys' discussion on a phrase outta nowhere!
It's the difference between just looking and admiring at a perfectly made cake and eating that entire same perfect cake to experience it by taste rather than sight. No one's really arguing on what to do with the cake at a later time if you just.. have it. Same with what happens after you eat it.
Not really? Also, this is the complete opposite of the phrase??? The idea of phrase is centered around being selfish by wanting to have two different experiences of the same thing at once even though it'd be impossible. It's entirely possible to get the money back in your example, whereas in the cake one, once it's eaten, it's basically gone (and yeah it turned into something else, but that's definitely not a cake anymore, so.. gone, basically lol) You can get another cake after that, but it won't be the exact same either.
So, yeah, we already know the phrasing is awful as it's talking about the entire cake in the phrase, and uhhh.. no, eating a portion of the cake totally ruins the whole point of the terrible phrasing we adapted to using. "If you eat the cake, you no longer have it" like you said is way more ideal and to the point, I'd rather use that too, let's move on~
