A lesson in logic

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by kabbes *
It is the suggestion that your fellow SDMBers don’t understand analogy. So this is the point from which discussion ensued.

I didn’t say that SDMB’s in general don’t understand analogies, I said that some don’t. Are you seriously arguing that there are no members of this MB which do not understand analogies?

Subsequent arguments were made that show that we do understand analogy.

See, once again you are missing the point. You can argue all you want that you understand analogies, but that will not have anything to do with the OP, because I never said that you don’t understand analogies.

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.

Since whether or not I understand analogies is not, in fact, the topic at hand, any statements regarding that issue are, indeed, off topic.

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.

No, agreeing or disagreeing with the OP would be even more on topic, wouldn’t it? Whether or not I use analogies effectively has nothing to do with the OP.

TomH

Having exhausted the “prove me wrong” tactic with ruadh in the Hillsborough thread,

Since ruadh was claiming to have proved me wrong, I see nothing wrong with demanding that she actually prove me wrong. Contrast this with this thread, in which I did not present you with a claim.

he’s moved on to “I could prove it but you wouldn’t give me a fair hearing”.

Proving this to you is simply not my goal. Had I wished to debate the legitimiticy of my OP, I would have put it in GD. My goal was simply to let the people in question know that they were ignorant as to the nature of an analogy. The only reason that I responded to oldscratch’s response was because he politely requested examples, instead of demanding them. My offer to answer in another thread was not motivated by a sense of obligation, as you seem to imply. What makes you think you have the right to show up and complain when I don’t offer you proof? Do you crash other people’s party and then complain when there isn’t enough beer?

[oldscratch]

oh oh an analogy. And for the life of my I don’t understand it.

Asking The Ryan for proof of his assertations in a thread started by him on an open message board is like crashing a party and complaining if there isn’t beer.

Yep. Makes no sense to me.
You’re a piece of work. Amazing really.

[inor]

now, be kind.
He obviously missed your ‘perlite’ request above.

He’s a victim of some kind of -ectomy surgery gone bad, you can see that, can’t you?

I, however, am not. the oh, oh,…yep, makes no sense to me post was, from the first syllable, to the last, art.

Thank you sirrah…

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by The Ryan
**I didn’t say that SDMB’s in general don’t understand analogies, I said that some don’t. Are you seriously arguing that there are no members of this MB which do not understand analogies?

Since whether or not I understand analogies is not, in fact, the topic at hand, any statements regarding that issue are, indeed, off topic. **

Hmm. Since the topic up for discussion is whether or not some members of the SMDB understand analogies, why is your (in)ability to understand analogies not on topic? You’re [sub]unfortunately[/sub] a member here, aren’t you? Why are your analogies exempt from criticism? Do you consider yourself superior to all the other members?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Well, [yawn] if anybody still cares [yawn]… I’m sitting here waiting up for The Cat Who Walks Alone (basketball game), so I might as well work up the Cliff’s Notes version. It’s Eddie The Dane’s “Don’t like the Constitution?” GD thread from February 10-12.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=59354

originally posted by The Ryan:
There’s big difference between believing that people that disagree with you should leave, and believing that they should be forced to leave. I see nothing totalitarianist about expressing a desire that people who are fundamentally opposed to the principle of this country leave it. Is it totalitarianist to wish that a troll would leave the SDMB?

originally posted by Protesilaus
**Your analogy is faulty. Trolls, and others who violate the rules, are banned. Citizens who violate the country’s rules are sent to prison. Disliking the Constitution is not one of those rules, because the First Amendment gives the freedom to hold that opinion.

**

originally posted by The Ryan:
**Why did you criticize my analogy be examining a completely different analogy?

**

originally posted by Protesilaus
**What completely different analogy? Earlier, you asked:

Is it totalitarianist to wish that a troll would leave the SDMB?

In doing so, you equated a troll on the SDMB to someone who does not like the Constitution. I then explained to you that trolls violate rules, whereas Constitution-haters do not, because the Freedom of Speech allows them to freely express their distaste for the Constitution. That is the faulty analogy, and it’s the analogy you made.**

originally posted by The Ryan:
**

What completely different analogy?

My analogy was between people who want trolls to leave and people who want people who don’t like the Constitution to leave. Your analogy was between forcing trolls to leave and forcing people who don’t like the Constitution to leave.

In doing so, you equated a troll on the SDMB to someone who does not like the Constitution.

No, I made an analogy between a troll and someone who does not like the Constitution. I did not equate them.

I then explained to you that trolls violate rules, whereas Constitution-haters do not, because the Freedom of Speech allows them to freely express their distaste for the Constitution. That is the faulty analogy, and it’s the analogy you made.

“Trolls violate rules, and people who don’t like the Constitution don’t” is not an analogy, nor did I say it.

**

originally posted by Protelisaus:
**

My analogy was between people who want trolls to leave and people who want people who don’t like the Constitution to leave. Your analogy was between forcing trolls to leave and forcing people who don’t like the Constitution to leave.

I never made an analogy, I just explained why your analogy is no good. I know it’s your analogy because it’s in the quote above, where you claim it to be your analogy. It’s the exact same analogy I’ve told you was faulty twice already. I will explain a third time why this analogy is no good.
A troll is someone who goes out of their way to be a jerk, and acts insulting and abusive towards others. Someone who does not like Constitution merely holds a view opposite to your own. Is it reasonable to want a troll, such as Phaedrus or JDT, banned? Yes. Is it reasonable to want someone, such as 2sense, who does not agree with you that the Constitution is a good idea, banned? Of course it’s not reasonable to want to get rid of someone because you don’t agree with them. Please note that I said “want banned,” not “banned”. There is no force here.
A troll is abusive and harrassing. A troll violates the rules of the MB. A criminal violates the rules of the country. Is it reasonable to want a criminial to leave the country? Yes.
A Constitution hater has a point of view unlike yours. It is LEGAL to disagree with you. Someone who doesn’t like the Constitution is NOT A CRIMINAL! They have the right to feel this way, and it is intolerant of you to demand they leave. And that is exactly what you did. That you did not demand the government to force them to leave is irrelevant, as you did demand that they leave.
You cannot compare a troll to someone who doesn’t like the Constitution. They are not the same.

No, I made an analogy between a troll and someone who does not like the Constitution. I did not equate them.

Those words mean the same thing! An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are the similar, you equate them.

“Trolls violate rules, and people who don’t like the Constitution don’t” is not an analogy, nor did I say it.

1. Of course it’s not an analogy, it’s my explanation for why your analogy is wrong!
2. No, you didn’t say it. I said it. How can you not tell the difference between what you said and what I said?**

originally posted by The Ryan:
**

I never made an analogy, I just explained why your analogy is no good.

No, you simply presented a difference between trolls and people that disagree with the Constitution without ever showing how this explains how this invalidates my analogy. Simply beacause the two are different, that doesn’t mean that any analogy involving the two is invalid.

Is it reasonable to want someone, such as 2sense, who does not agree with you that the Constitution is a good idea, banned? Of course it’s not reasonable to want to get rid of someone because you don’t agree with them. Please note that I said “want banned,” not “banned”. There is no force here.

Of course there is. Banning someone forces them to not post here. And I note that you still are not listening to me. There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone who irritates you would leave. Read that preceding sentence again. I did not say “There is nothing wrong with wishing someone who irritates you would be banned”, I said “There is nothing wrong with wishing that someone who irritates you would leave”.

They have the right to feel this way, and it is intolerant of you to demand they leave. And that is exactly what you did.

When?

You cannot compare a troll to someone who doesn’t like the Constitution. They are not the same.

Are you implying that you can only compare two things if they are the same?
Compare: To examine in order to note the similarities or differences of.
How can you note the differences of two things if they’re the same?

Those words mean the same thing! An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are the similar, you equate them.

No, when I say that two thing are similar, I say that they are similar. Similarity is very different from equality.

1. Of course it’s not an analogy, it’s my explanation for why your analogy is wrong!
2. No, you didn’t say it. I said it. How can you not tell the difference between what you said and what I said?

Let’s look at the quote again:

I then explained to you that trolls violate rules, whereas Constitution-haters do not, because the Freedom of Speech allows them to freely express their distaste for the Constitution. That is the faulty analogy, and it’s the analogy you made.

The word “that” is a pronoun, and the obvious choice for its antecedent is the previous sentence. Therefore, it seems very clear that you are saying that the previous statement is
a) an analogy
b) something that I said.
which contradict your current position.

There is no other reasonable explanation for what “that” could refer to. However, you certainly have not been reasonable in this thread, so perhaps you meant it to refer to something else. Is that so, and if so, what? **

originally posted by Protelisaus:
**These aren’t arguments, TheRyan, they’re semantic wordplay. My writing style and grammar are clear to others, so I can only assume you’re being deliberately obtuse. I’ve seen that you have a history of this, it’s not just me. I also must note, seeing as how I’m the “unreasonable” one here, that there are no Pit threads full of complaints about me. If you wish to actually debate the issue, I’d be happy to do so, if you just want to engage in semantics, forget it. I won’t play.

**

originally posted by The Ryan:
**Insisting that you use words correctly is hardly “semantic wordplay”, and considering what you consider an argument, your advice in this area is far from valuable.

My writing style and grammar are clear to others, so I can only assume you’re being deliberately obtuse.

If you are unable to explain your position, it’s my fault? My, you certainly are expressing a rather high opinion of yourself. If you refuse a request for clarification, you can hardly call your opponent “deliberately obtuse”. If I were being deliberately obtuse, I would not have offered you an opportunity to set me straight. And if you were really interested in defending your position, you would not have refused it.

**

[inor]

omigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigod

You ARE going to submit that to Playboy[sup]tm[/sup], aren’t you?

Truly, truly, wonderful…

[Protesilaus]

Thanks for posting that, DDG. You left off my favorite part of The Ryan’s final post, though:

Originally posted by The Ryan
**Your posts have had a quality similar to that of “Wah, wah, you don’t agree with me, you’re a nasty totalitarianist, wah, wah”. I really hope you’re one of those kids that have taken advantage of their school’s internet connection to visit this message board, because the idea that an adult could present such an immature “argument” as you have is rather depressing. I can’t recall a single logical progression of ideas that you’re presented in our entire discussion. **

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Since ruadh was claiming to have proved me wrong, I see nothing wrong with demanding that she actually prove me wrong.

Yup. Just point out where I claimed that, OK, TR?

[sub](sits back and waits for something like “By saying that I didn’t have proof you were implying that you had proof that I was wrong.”)[/sub]

[TomH]

Originally posted by The Ryan
I’m amazed at the number of people on this board unable to comprehend the concept of an analogy.

There are two claims here:

1. the explicit claim that you are amazed, which I do not contest; and

2. the implied claim that a “number of people on this board [are] unable to comprehend the concept of an analogy”, of which I have asked for proof.

What makes you think you have the right to show up and complain when I don’t offer you proof? Do you crash other people’s party and then complain when there isn’t enough beer?

Since we’re on the subject of analogies, this thread is to your private party as an item on the letters page of the Times is to my private diary. If you do not want to be asked for proof of your claims, don’t make them in public. It really is that simple! (And it certainly isn’t rocket science).

And yes, I have on one or two occasions crashed a party and complained about the lack of beer. What of it?

[The_Ryan]

An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are the similar, you equate them.

So are you people really telling me that this does not constitute a complete lack of understanding of what an analogy is?

And ruadh,

That would be a “no”, then. Jesus! I’ve seen before that you have a very poor understanding of constitutional law, but this is incredible! If everything that encouraged people to act irresponsibly was illegal …

does not sound like the words of someone who thinks the issue of whether I am wrong or not is still up in the air. It is pretty obvious to me that it is you that is making the positive assertion, and it is you that have refused to back it up. Do you have any proof that I have a very poor understanding of constitutional law, to the the point of incredulity? Other than “You disagree with me, so you must be ignorant”? I’d really like to see a cite that shouting “Fire!” is not illegal because it encourages irresponsible behavior.

[Redboss]

*Originally posted by TomH *
**And yes, I have on one or two occasions crashed a party and complained about the lack of beer. What of it? **

AHA!

I thought I recognised you TomH.

Yes thanks a lot for turning up uninvited, NOT in costume and then whinging and whining for hours about the lack of beer! I told you over and over you were welcome to as much semillon and un-oaked chardonnay as you wanted, and we had some really good cheeses, but were you interested? No! That girl you brought stole one of my invited guest’s coats, and I am certain it was her who threw up in the letterbox!

And as for that so-called “political” discussion you had for hours with those two terrified vietnamese girls - you KNEW they couldn’t understand you - why didn’t you just leave them alone? I am still waiting for reimbursement for the cracked coffee table top, by the way.

Don’t come back.

NOTE: this whole posting is, of course, an analogy.

[sub]not that anyone who reads these boards will GET it, of course…don’t know why I bother…[/sub]
Redboss

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
…does not sound like the words of someone who thinks the issue of whether I am wrong or not is still up in the air.

Jesus, is this the best you can do to back up your statement that I “claimed to have proven you wrong”? Do you even think before you post?

Do you have any proof that I have a very poor understanding of constitutional law, to the the point of incredulity?

Hah. Where should I begin?

Well we’ve already covered (in the Hillsborough thread) your apparent belief that a First Amendment absolutist such as William O. Douglas would make an exception for something just because it might encourage people to behave irresponsibly. Then, in the same thread, there’s your attempt to use a dictionary definition of solicitation to counter its legal definition.

We can then move on to the Prop 209 thread in which you claimed that discrimination only refers to intent, not to effect, and made up some distinction between “group” and “class” which plain and simple does not exist in the law, and when this was pointed out to you, said it didn’t matter that it wasn’t a legal definition because it was just “common sense”.

Then, there was the Boy Scouts thread in which you claimed that the right to freedom of association is explicitly granted in the First Amendment. Unfortunately that thread has gone bye-bye, but in the thread referenced below I linked to it, so presumably the Admins could retrieve it from their archives and prove that you said it (I can’t believe that even you would be so stupid as to repeat that claim, so I’m assuming your only defence here would be denial.)

Finally, the piece de resistance, in the Gay Agenda thread. This one requires some background. Melin had joked that she was thinking about removing a political sign she disagreed with from her neighbor’s lawn, the Troll du Jour referred to this hypothetical action as violative of the neighbor’s First Amendment rights, I reminded TDJ that the First Amendment’s prohibitions didn’t apply to private individuals, and you responded:

Yes, it does. The First Amendment applies to Congress, and Congress makes laws that apply to everyone. If Melin had gone through with her inteded act, she would have been guilty of violating her neighbors’ civil rights.

And these are only the examples that I remember off the top of my head. If I actually went looking through all your posts on the Constitution (for someone who knows so little about it, you sure do like to post about it a lot), I’m sure I’d find quite a few more howlers.

I’m sure you won’t accept this as proof, because you probably still think all of the above is correct. That’s OK, though. Everybody else knows.

I’d really like to see a cite that shouting “Fire!” is not illegal because it encourages irresponsible behavior.

And you still haven’t grasped the fact that others are not responsible for disproving your assertions.

That’s far more than enough time wasted on you already, I think.

[Protesilaus]

Originally posted by ruadh
**And these are only the examples that I remember off the top of my head. If I actually went looking through all your posts on the Constitution (for someone who knows so little about it, you sure do like to post about it a lot), I’m sure I’d find quite a few more howlers. **

Here’s two more. In Abe Lincoln: Overhyped?, he displays a complete lack of knowledge about what “due process” means.

Originally posted by The Ryan on 01-02-2001 9:22 PM
Actually, the fifth amendment should prohibit wars in general. It’s not like enemy soldiers are given due process before being shot. I’m not sure how legal scholars have rationalized that one.

In his own thread, 13th amendment doesn’t apply to the government? he confuses jury duty and mandatory school attendance with slavery!

Originally posted by The Ryan (OP)
It seems to me that, while the 13th amendment has ended legal slavery in the private sector, such practices as mandatory school attendance for minors, jury duty, and military draft show that the government feels free to ignore it. I suppose one could make a case that as the government does not directly benefit from the labor of schoolchildren, this is not slavery. However, I can’t think of any explanation for jury duty or the draft other than “they’re neccessary, so we can make an exception”. They are clearly services, and they are clearly involuntary.

This next one is not Constitution-related, but it does show a jaw-dropping The Ryan analogy. In Is George W. Bush REALLY stupid-or is it an act?

ToiletDuck: He [George W. Bush] will be required to knowledgeably take an active role in hot issues where his simple, boy-next-door charm and appeal will not serve this country. It’s a command of the facts, issues and realities that would best serve us.
The Ryan: Let’s see: Hitler had charm, Einstein had command of facts. Remind me again who ended up ruling Germany?

I can’t imagine the lunacy I’d find with a more exhaustive search, as I found these by picking five random threads with The Ryan contributions. (The other two threads had lunacy too, but not quite as relevant.)

[The_Ryan]

Wow, you people are incredibly obsessive. And doing everything you can to distract me from the point of this thread. Ruadh, if you want to address the points I made in the Hillsborough thread, here’s an idea: do it in that thread! Here’s some points to consider in that thread:

I’m not trying to convince you that this is the reason selling cocaine is illegal. I have no interest in arguing why selling cocaine is illegal, and the only reason it came up is because you brought it up. You, on the other hand, very much want to convince me that the reason why SFIACT is illegal is because it deprives people of their free will, and yet have no cite to back that up. Do you understand the difference? I’m not trying to convince you, so I have no obligation to produce a cite. You are trying to convince me, so you do have an obligation to produce a cite.

Why are you pointing out that you never used the word “aware” when I never said you did?

and I’ve added a post about your apparent belief that judges write laws.

Now, does anyone want to actually address the OP by giving an answer to my question as to whether

An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are the similar, you equate them.

is a correct understanding of analogies?

[Morgyn]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**Now, does anyone want to actually address the OP by giving an answer to my question as to whether

An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are similar, you equate them.

is a correct understanding of analogies? **

It is not a correct understanding of analogies.

An analogy uses a partial similarity between two things to illustrate an idea or a relationship.

“Page is to Book as Leaf is to Tree”

This is an analogy. It means that the relationship between a page and a book is similar to the relationship between a leaf and a tree. It does not say that a page and a leaf are the same thing, or that a book and a tree are the same thing, or even that the relationship between a page and a book and a leaf and a tree is the same thing.

If you don’t understand this, I suggest you try taking a refresher course in literature.

[ruadh]

TR, I didn’t address those “points” because they didn’t address any of my arguments to begin with. They’re just further examples of your argument-by-mutilation-of-the-English-language habit and I refuse to encourage you further in that.

You can see my reply to your (wrong) statement that I think judges make laws in that thread.

[ricepad]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**Wow, you people are incredibly obsessive…

**

Wow…a pot over there…calling those kettles black…

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Morgyn *
**

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**Now, does anyone want to actually address the OP by giving an answer to my question as to whether

An analogy compares two things for the purpose of showing how they are similar. When you say two things are similar, you equate them.

is a correct understanding of analogies? **

It is not a correct understanding of analogies.

Well, there you have it. After more than a week, no one has provided an argument as to why I am wrong, and in fact one person agreed with me. Strangely enough, he (she?) appears to think that he is disagreeing with me. This supports my belief that you people are biased against me, and are disagreeing with my statements not because of their contents, but simply because I said them. It appears that the best way to get people to disagree with my opponents’ statements is to present them as my own.

[casdave]

Arse!!

[Morgyn]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Strangely enough, he (she?) appears to think that he is disagreeing with me. This supports my belief that you people are biased against me, and are disagreeing with my statements not because of their contents, but simply because I said them.

When I saw your response I reread the OP and realized that the question I answered wasn’t the one you’d originally asked. The question I answered was the one in your last post, which implied (to me) that you were saying that if two things were similar, they were equal, an idiot’s statement on the face of it.

Bias had nothing to do with it, since I haven’t developed an opinion of you yet beyond a “dear god, here’s another 100-billion-line post of quotes and refutations!!!”