too rich?

[jonb]

I will make a statement that

'Gravity affects me.'
Now, we have the term gravity, and in that statement we find that we are talking about gravity affecting the individual. There is no sort of reference to the body which the individual is affected by. So the statement is about the affect of gravity on an individual. Nothing more nothing less. To say that the statement is about the earth pulling me down, is not proven because the statement is clearly about the affect of gravity on me, it is not about any other possible object. Other possible objects are not defined by the statement.
Thus in that statement we are talking about gravity and an individual.
Now it could be said that to have gravity you need at least two objects so that one can be attracted to the other, but as the statement does not define a second object it is clear the statement is not about a second object.
Just the action of gravity on an individual.
This is basic English we use it to define what we are talking about.
It does not matter how hard a reader of that statement insists the earth is part of the statement as any possible second body is not defined by the statement. The writer of the statement is correct in insisting the earth is not part of the statement.
Similarly the Statement 'I am taxed', or even 'she should be taxed' does not define what I or she maybe taxed by. This is because those statements are about the act of taxation on individuals, not what may or may not be taxing them.