A lesson in logic

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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…

:wink:

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?

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

**

**

**

**

**

omigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigodomigod

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

Truly, truly, wonderful…

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

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]

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.

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?

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

And ruadh,

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.

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

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?

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.)

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:

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

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.

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.

**

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

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.

Arse!!

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!!!”