Yes, you are somewhat of the analogy lover aren’t you Ryan.
The trouble is that there are two parts to arguing an analogy in the context of a debate.[list=1][li]Firstly you must establish that the analogy is true. That A really is to B as C is to D. The problem here is that real-life analogies are rarely as clear cut as this. The fundamental differences between A and C and between B and D can render an analogistic comparison meaningless, or more to thie point they can render the analogy worthless. I find that a lot of your analogies fall into this latter category.[/li]
[li]This is the kicker - if you want to actually use the analogy then you must establish that C is to D! It’s no good using the relationship between C and D as an illustration unless everybody unequivocably agrees that relationship. I’ve seen in debates where you have a part a tendency for the discussion to trail off into an analysis of the relationship between C and D. When this happens it is no more than a big giant hijack.[/list=1]Unfortunately discussions involving God, economics and politics rarely lend themselves to simple, clear-cut analogies for these two reasons. Attempting the analogy-as-argument approach in this case just leads to frustration.[/li]
pan
FENRIS, PROTESILAUS, I would like to retain you both as my spokes-people for any further exchanges I might have with THE RYAN. I have for each of you a brand-new $3 bill, which I trust will serve as a retainer.
If you’ve already said something that indicates that you believe aliens have landed on Planet Earth, and I ask you for one example that demonstrates that aliens have in fact landed on Planet Earth, not really expecting you to come up with one, and you tell me there is a colony of Martians living in Sonoma, California, is the burden of proof on me to prove that there isn’t?
Is there anyone (else) on this board who would say that it is?
(Dopers who don’t know what I’m on about are invited to this thread to see TR’s attempts to weasel out of having to back up a positive assertion he made.)
[tactical shift]
You know TR, for most people the purpose of engaging in debate is to persuade the other person of the correctness of your opinion - or, failing that, to at least persuade them that your opinion is reasonable and logical even if they ultimately can’t agree with it. You, regrettably, seem to have the third purpose of debating in order to demonstrate your superior intellect - oneupmanship, we might call it.
But the fact of the matter is you fail miserably on all three counts. Even you can’t deny this. All over this board - hell, all over this thread - is evidence that those who engage in debate with you are neither convinced that your POV is correct, nor that it is reasonable, nor that you are really very bright at all. In fact, it seems the only things you succeed in inspiring in your readers are irritation and ridicule.
Is your ego really too big to recognize this as evidence of a serious problem in your debating style?
I think the main point of this thread is being totally over-looked, to the great detriment of our enlightenment, our characters, and this thread in general.
I am sorry I didn’t realize it sooner. I have been competely remiss.
All this back and forth going on and many good points on both sides.
Both lucid and hallucid arguments from many worthies.
However, IMHO, it behooves us to examine the as-yet unexamined.
To wit:
Ok, then, what about MR fucking Howell, Mssrs. and Mme. Smarty Pantses?
[sub]:hell with running, getting in the goddam car:[/sub]
Captain Amazing: I was LMAO! That was fucking hilarious, and right on target too. Should we call him Charley now?
Jodi: What would I have to do?
I’d be honored. $3 sounds about right. (BTW, who’s on that thing? ;)) With your permission, I’ve got a new sig. Do you like it?
Prospective sig Jodi offered me her undying devotion (and a $3 bill!) in this thread.
You did respond in a a serious way, without vitriol, but not to my OP. You had a good point, but I never said that no one had made any good points. I just said that no one had made any good points regarding my OP.
Neither of these has anything to do with my OP. Yes, analogies aren’t perfect rhetorical devices; I am well aware of that. That’s not the issue. The issue is that some people don’t understand analogies. I find it ironic that this thread is full of people that have commented on side issues and/or have accused me of being a poor debater. If someone wishes to complain about my posting style, there is already a thread for that purpose, or one could start a new one. That’s not what this thread is for, and while I certainly can’t stop people from hijacking the thread, hijacking the thread while at the same time complaining that I often distract discussions from the main point is rather silly.
I’m gonna get a little insulting here, and I apologize beforehand, not that that helps, I know. But I have to say that at least I ain’t in full flame mode yet, so that’s something.
Listen man, are you some kind of fucking pissed off cyborg stuck in a LOOP instruction or what? (Techchick- if you’re reading this, I know you’re harking back to last weekend and LYFAO ((closest I could come to a sheepish grin))
TR- I seriously hope you don’t/doubt you have kids, and if I’m wrong, please don’t inform me- my heart would break for them. Or a wife/husband. My mind kind of breaks when I imagine these hypothetical people’s situation.
You’re heavier than a fucking black hole- is english your second language that you have such a hard time expressing the slightest bit of levity?
Could you go fucking borrow even a small sense of humor?
Or fake having one?
Or fake having borrowed one, at least? Maybe every 6th post?
I carefully read your last post in it’s entirety, it was not quite novella length, so I could, and don’t entirely disagree with you. But shit, I do kinda want to sew your (alleged, at this point) lips shut with a carpet layers needle.
In no way am I saying or even trying to imply that you are an asshole or anything or that you ought to be banned, but you might consider taking ‘member’ off of your name- it’s pretty evident that you consider yourself quite apart from the human race, let alone pitiful SDMBrs.
Here:
You win.
Happy now?
You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win You win
Which brings up the interesting query: how has TR managed to circumvent the first law to post such human-damaging drivel?
Granted, a cyborg is not the same thing as a robot, and that may lie at the root of the problem. Does the robot part have to take orders from all humans (except where it violates the first law), or only the human to whom it is attached? And don’t the first and third laws begin to overlap for a cyborg? And what if a human was in danger but the cyborg would have to be put at risk to save him/her?
Geez, if I had to deal with that every day of my life, I might go haywire too. Asimov never explained this to us. Poor robot-infused bastard.
I don’t even remember the second and third very well, but good point. I hadn’t thought of it.
Maybe there’s more wrong than jsut being stuck in a LOOP statement? (Speculation on my part).
Maybe the three laws just don’t apply here? If my speculation does have some truth to it, who’s to say his makers ever read Asimov? Maybe we’re talking Berserker here?
Well, of course the Three Laws don’t appy. Can you just imagine how TR would dissect them?
*The First Law: No robot will allow any harm to come to a human.
TR: Now, we know this isn’t the first law, after all, that was created many years before robots were even dreamed of. Anyway, a law is something created by a legislature and approved by a chief executive. Since this so-called law was from the pen of a writer (who, btw was afraid to fly, so you just know any statement or prediction of space flight he had was invalid) who was neither a legislator nor a chief executive, this ins’t a law!*
Considering how this thread is turning out, I think that such examples would not be receive a fair examination. If you really are honest in your curiosity, another thread would be appropiate, in another forum. People seem to have mistaken the rule that they may flame in the Pit for the rule that they must flame in the Pit.
debaten - Controversy, discussion, public argument*
So here’s how a debate works Yarn. You make a controversial assertion, I respond with a counterargument and so we have a discussion.
Here is your OP, in its entirity:
Notice any controvosy here? The controversial part of this is not the definition of an analogy. It is the suggestion that your fellow SDMBers don’t understand analogy. So this is the point from which discussion ensued.
Subsequent arguments were made that show that we do understand analogy. The suggestions made that you claim are “off topic” actually are arguments suggesting that it is you who has not fully grasped the use of this particular debating trick.
Hence claiming that you use analogy as a blunt weapon and are surprised when your foe nimbly skips out of the way is most certainly not off topic. It is about as on topic as you can get.
pan
*interesting sidenote: etymology is de battre from the Latin for fight
So the thread about “the number of people on this board [who are] unable to comprehend the concept of an analogy” is not the appropriate place for examples of failure to comprehend an analogy?
Yet again, The Ryan’s bold assertion is unsubstantiated. Having exhausted the “prove me wrong” tactic with ruadh in the Hillsborough thread, he’s moved on to “I could prove it but you wouldn’t give me a fair hearing”. Stand by for “I have proof, but you are not capable of understanding it”, shortly followed by a Phaedrus-style ranting disintegration.
ya know, I am beginning to picture The Ryan posting in Aviator shades, a white shirt and a black tie, I wonder if there is a picture of him standing near Times Square. That leads me to wonder if he can speak Iroquois…
((closest I could come to a sheepish grin))