I’ve been forced to it. Analogy is not equivalence, fuckers. Vaguely inspired by (or rather, tipped over the edge by) this thread, I am taking a stand against all those who insist that an analogy must be identical in every conceptual respect to the situation it is supposedly analogous to.
Yes, I just ended a sentence with a preposition, and that is something off with which you must fuck. It’s a lot like oral sex in that respect. Spit or swallow, just don’t come bitching to me. Anyway.
An analogy is not supposed to be exactly like the analogous situation. Then there would be no point to the analogy, it would just be a thing that is the same as the other thing, and serve no rhetorical purpose whatsofuckingever. The whole fucking point of an analogy is that it is similar in key respects to the original topic at hand, while differing in others. A skilfully constructed analogy may wildly differ in many other, hopefully tangential, aspects, which are likely chosen to highlight a key point in the argument about the original topic.
One of those aspects may well be (wait for it … ) degree!
Yes, degree. Yes, an analogy may well present a comparable but worse case in order to highlight the moral question at the core of the discussion. Nazis and rape may well be involved. Maybe Tom Jones will proposition a stagehand, and things will get completely WACKY! The point of this madcap zaniness is to make you think about your position in the original context, and examine what it is in the analogous situation that makes you change your mind. This may or may not be successful, but what it is not supposed to do is present two entirely identical situations which reinforce your previously-held conviction about what is right. That would be fucking stupid.
Now, it may be (indeed, it is likely) the case that the analogy presented is fucking stupid. For that matter, I may well follow up this rant with one about Fucking Stupid Analogies, which will likely draw heavily on filesharing debates. Fucking Stupid Analogies deserve the scorn they draw, for they differ in just about every possible way from the original situation, and are thus, as I say, Fucking Stupid.
This does not mean that all analogies are Fucking Stupid, and I wish you’d bloody accept this. If you spot a difference between a subject and a proposed analogy, please: stop. Think. Is this a Honking Great Difference, worthy of mockery until entropy declares all analogies useless and makes Phil Collins’ atoms blend with The King’s, or is this in fact the whole fucking point of the fucking analogy in the first place? Is this a show-stopper of a difference, or is it unto differences as the Macarena is unto dance? I beg you, ponder these questions, like unto Solomon facing a really fat baby and armed only with a salad fork. Making an analogy is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman, and I just wish you’d all take a bit more fucking care.
This rant has been brought to you by four pints of San Miguel, half a bottle of 2001 Rioja Gran Reserva, two glasses of some sort of disgusting champagne, and a train journey home during which I had to listen to two accountants debating the pros and cons of the new SCA approach to the TMC methodology on the RPA TQL analyses. I asked if they’d got the memo about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports and they just stared at me.