# Analogies Banned in GD - Part II **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 21, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261 "2014-11-21T16:29:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/41 "2014-11-22T04:00:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No. > > Notice that Bricker is able to argue with me in the other thread substantively. Notice that when jtgain argues substantively, people argue right back with him. Notice the difference between responses to [posts like this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17918081&postcount=10), where at least some new argument is put forth, and [posts like this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17914286#post17914286), rehashing things that have already been said and critiqued without addressing those critiques. Notice even **Shodan’s** half-baked contentless wanna-be-gotcha snipes at me, and how those continue. > > Plenty of conservatives post around here, saying things that mods disagree with, without getting in trouble. That ain’t what’s going on. What’s going on is that some people think that repeating dumb arguments without addressing critiques of them is best practice (cue Shodan making another snipe at me–go ahead!) and others look for a reason to declare that conservatives are being oppressed and jump on the bandwagon. > > jtgain, I am confident, can do better, and has. I would suggest the problem is not that conservatives can’t post disagreements. The problem is that crappy tactics, such as indefensible (and undefended) analogies by conservatives are attacked, and substantially similar behavior from liberals is permitted. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/42 "2014-11-22T04:02:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that crappy tactics, such as indefensible (and undefended) analogies by conservatives are attacked, and substantially similar behavior from liberals is permitted. I would suggest that that doesn’t happen, not nearly to the degree you think it does if at all, and that anecdotes of leftists making unmoderated bad arguments won’t be helpful, since there are also plenty of examplese of conservatives also making unmoderated bad arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/43 "2014-11-22T05:13:58Z")
**Jonathan Chance** repeatedly confuses the role of moderator with that of editor. We don’t need a bunch of editors reviewing the quality of content. This is a place where people come to talk about stuff for fun. That’s it. Set a few rules and step in when they are broken and let the rest sort itself out. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/44 "2014-11-22T06:10:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I would suggest that that doesn’t happen, not nearly to the degree you think it does if at all, and that anecdotes of leftists making unmoderated bad arguments won’t be helpful, since there are also plenty of examplese of conservatives also making unmoderated bad arguments. Right, i agree. But doesn’t that lead us back to the very problem at the heart of this thread? While we all make our own evaluations of the quality of people’s arguments around here, do we really want those types of evaluations to be attached to actual moderating decisions regarding who gets to make what argument? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/45 "2014-11-22T14:53:11Z")
Still wondering how it is that **LHoD** (for instance) can repeat himself over and over without addressing any refutations, and **jtgain** cannot. If this is going to be the standard, shouldn’t it be consistent across posters? If it isn’t the standard, what is? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/46 "2014-11-22T22:43:56Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > . . . I’m pretty sure that if this board had existed in the 60s, using gay marriage as an analogy to criticize interracial marriage would have been considered overwhelmingly as a very bad analogy, because a man marrying a man is _entirely different_ from a man marrying a woman of whatever colour. And people would have argued that the analogy has been refuted times and again, with the troll stubornly persisting in using it. The thing is, back then, the two issues would have been “entirely different.” One had large-scale support, and the other had none. More importantly, “stubbornly persisting in using it” is the problem, not merely using it. If he’s not going to be a troll, he has to address why it is a cogent analogy, and actually rebut, with substance, those who argue against it. “Stubborn persistence” is the trollish behavior. The worthwhile debater brings ideas to a discussion that haven’t been beaten to the thinness of gold leaf. (If everyone here piles on and says, “Gold leaf? Jeez, that’s a pathetic analogy,” I might defend it once, maybe twice, but then let it go. To err is human, to forgive divine, but to persist is devilish.) ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/47 "2014-11-23T00:38:45Z")
I didn’t read the original thread, but I just read the new thread that **LHoD** started. Based on my reading of that, I disagree that the argument that **jtgain** made is invalid. I also disagree that it has been rebutted. Dismissing an argument with sarcasm and incredulity isn’t rebuttal, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/48 "2014-11-23T03:13:58Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I didn’t read the original thread, but I just read the new thread that **LHoD** started. Based on my reading of that, I disagree that the argument that **jtgain** made is invalid. I also disagree that it has been rebutted. Dismissing an argument with sarcasm and incredulity isn’t rebuttal, IMO. Without re-opening the subject, it was not just dismissed with sarcasm and incredulity. Several people, including myself, pointed out the significant legal differences between forbidding a same-sex marriage and forbidding a marriage between a person and a washing machine. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/49 "2014-11-23T03:27:17Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The thing is, back then, the two issues would have been “entirely different.” One had large-scale support, and the other had none. > > More importantly, “stubbornly persisting in using it” is the problem, not merely using it. If he’s not going to be a troll, he has to address why it is a cogent analogy, and actually rebut, with substance, those who argue against it. > > “Stubborn persistence” is the trollish behavior. The worthwhile debater brings ideas to a discussion that haven’t been beaten to the thinness of gold leaf. > > (If everyone here piles on and says, “Gold leaf? Jeez, that’s a pathetic analogy,” I might defend it once, maybe twice, but then let it go. To err is human, to forgive divine, but to persist is devilish.) Stubborn persistence is not in any way shape or form a trolling behavior. Trolling is deliberately trying to piss people off. The idea that someone who doesn’t debate honestly is a troll is ridiculous. And it’s complete contradiction for everything GD has ever been. I remember when I first started posting here. I tried to get some rule about proper debate in the forum. I was soundly rebuked for that. Stubborn persistence without explaining yourself happens in every GD thread. There’s always at least one per thread, and often a second one that gets locked into argument spiral with the first one. The entire point of this thread is the accusation that a certain poster is doing the same thing other people do, but being unfairly singled out due to the specific topic. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/50 "2014-11-23T03:36:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Without re-opening the subject, it was not just dismissed with sarcasm and incredulity. Several people, including myself, pointed out the significant legal differences between forbidding a same-sex marriage and forbidding a marriage between a person and a washing machine. Since we disagree, there’s a basis for a debate. The question for this thread is whether a mod should decide that. Since my opinion is that the argument is valid, my vote is that a mod should not be deciding if an argument is valid or has been rebutted. If the instruction was to take the argument to another thread, I’m agreed with that. It’s easier to see tangential arguments in separate threads without the noise of other arguments. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/51 "2014-11-23T04:10:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The thing is, back then, the two issues would have been “entirely different.” One had large-scale support, and the other had none. > > More importantly, “stubbornly persisting in using it” is the problem, not merely using it. If he’s not going to be a troll, he has to address why it is a cogent analogy, and actually rebut, with substance, those who argue against it. > > “Stubborn persistence” is the trollish behavior. The worthwhile debater brings ideas to a discussion that haven’t been beaten to the thinness of gold leaf. So? I’m precisely arguing that someone making such an analogy at the time would have been considered stubbornly persistent and trollish for not accepting the obvious and general rebuttal that a marriage between two men isn’t the same thing at all as a marriage between a man and a woman. IOW, essentially everybody thinking the argument is laughable on his face doesn’t mean it actually lacks merit. Instead of having an “argument police” deciding which argument is valid and can be repeated, and which isn’t, and must not be discussed anymore, which is going to be very arbitrary, why don’t people just decide to ignore the poster or let the thread die, once they’ve exposed their rebuttal a couple times? We have all the time new posters repeating endlessly the same ridiculed argument in a 15 page long thread, and some long time posters who would have been silenced if they had been barred from always repeating the same thing judged absurd by pretty much everybody else. What’s different in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/52 "2014-11-23T11:48:56Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That question doesn’t make sense. Are you agreeing with me, or is there some real confusion over what I asked? I can’t tell. > [@TubaDiva](#): > > First off, I strenuously protest the title of this thread. Analogies are not banned in GD or anywhere else, so stop that crap right now. An argument can be made that they should be. I have pointed out a couple times now that analogies are inherently flawed, because they are never a one-to-one correlation. They can’t be, because then they would not be an analogy, they would be the same thing. Analogies are like cats: people who like them get upset to see them abused, but people that hate them abuse them to prove their point that they are evil. But that’s a separate argument, and has no connection to the complaint listed as the title of this thread. You are correct, analogies have not been banned. A specific analogy was deemed to be a hijack in one thread. > [@Shodan](#): > > That’s just a restatement of the problem - is it the job of the mods to decide when critiques have been adequately addressed and when they have not? > [@Knorf](#): > > This is not a specific task presented as being among GD moderator duties, but has [arisen from issues](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=741392) regarding moderation in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=740941). > > Please point to somewhere in the GD rules where it says sticking with a supposedly rebutted argument is in itself a rules violation. I would argue that we are not seeing some new rule for GD moderation pulled out of **Jonathan Chance** ’s … hat. Rather, the incident that spawned the thread that generated this question was simply a standard moderation using the rules against being a jerk and the rules against trolling, i.e. posting merely to inflame. I suppose someone could complain whether or not that was what **jtgain** was actually doing, and if **Jonathan Chance** ’s moderation was valid on those grounds. But nobody has enacted any new rules, and this thread feels like people are overreacting to one incident and claiming it is setting a new precedent in thread moderation that freaks them out. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And I would add [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=644665&page=4) to the debate, since it seems to be a very similar issue. > > On page 4, **Tomndebb** shuts down the discussion on a specific point apparently because everybody disagrees with **XT** ’s views > > [snip] > > This seems to amount to ban an argument because, here too, it’s deemed invalid by the majority and as a result unworthy to be discussed by the moderator (especially irritating in this case since XT’s contradictors seem to be unaware of this hypothesis and not really grasping it). This was a very valid act of moderation. XT’s topic was, at best only tangentially related to the topic of that thread, and hinges on the same philosophical underpinnings that underlie the topic of teleportation and whether the person on the other end is really the same consciousness, or a new copy of the original. (Please don’t debate that topic in this thread - there are plenty of those in GD already.) Sending that hijack to another thread was completely normal behavior all across this board. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > To answer the OP’s questions, it’s the moderators’ job to moderate threads. And that means when somebody is doing something disruptive, they head it off. > > There is no general rule against making analogies. But in one particular case, one poster kept posting the same thing over and over again - which happened to be an analogy - and a moderator told him to drop it. It was the disruption not the analogy that was the problem. Ding ding ding - superb summary. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > I didn’t read the original thread, Well there’s your problem, you are judging claims about what happened in one thread by the behavior in a different thread. > [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > If the instruction was to take the argument to another thread, I’m agreed with that. It’s easier to see tangential arguments in separate threads without the noise of other arguments. That’s exactly what happened. He and everyone else were instructed to drop the argument in that thread and told they could start a new thread on that topic if they desired. Which did occur. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/53 "2014-11-23T12:27:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Well there’s your problem, you are judging claims about what happened in one thread by the behavior in a different thread. Indeed–it’s a pretty remarkable approach to put your two cents in without having read the relevant thread first. Again, without going too much into the details, it seems to me that **jtgain’s** behavior in the thread I started was significantly different from his behavior in the first thread. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/54 "2014-11-23T15:34:28Z")
Analogies are one thing. But if the moderators ever decide to ban logical fallacies, the Dope will go belly-up immediately. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/55 "2014-11-23T17:25:06Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > How do you tell the difference between repeating the same stupid, irrelevant, flawed analogy without addressing the critiques **and trolling**? Ah, I got it now. It was my misunderstanding of the difference being asked about. It’s a fine question, but convoluted, however the same thing could be asked about all kinds of other tactics, which may or may not be trolling. It’s not the tactic that is the problem, but the repetition of a point that a Moderator, or everybody, has judged meaningless (stupid, irrelevant, flawed). In essence, the command is to stop repeating a point that somebody has passed judgement on. It might not be an analogy, the Mods have the power to demand you stop any behavior they tell you to stop. When it seems biased, they are only doing it to one side of the debate, or one person, it appears unfair. So it’s not an analogy that is banned, but saying the analogy again. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/56 "2014-11-24T06:45:44Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s a fine question, but convoluted, however the same thing could be asked about all kinds of other tactics, which may or may not be trolling. Yes. That is why we have moderators to make those determinations. And why we have ATMB to second guess those determinations, and apparently whine about it. > [@](#): > > It’s not the tactic that is the problem, I think in this case it was the tactic that was the problem, which is why the moderator said to cut it out. Of course, that is my read on **jtgain** ’s attitude in the thread, which may or may not reflect the moderator’s attitude, and may or may not reflect reality. Here’s what appears to me to be happening. Person A makes an analogy. Person B says the analogy is not valid, because reasons. Person C doesn’t understand the analogy, because cats are furry, whereas analogies are _fuzzy_. Moderator steps in to say take the talk about cats elsewhere, the topic is analogies. Person D starts an ATMB thread to ask if it’s a new policy we can no longer talk about cats, and if so, is MPSIMS going to be closed down? Think of all the cats! ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/57 "2014-11-24T07:18:38Z")
Most boards ban ideas, others ban people who won’t obey instructions. The thought of banning analogies is novel. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/58 "2014-11-24T07:52:34Z")
Yeah, it’s a lot like… ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/59 "2014-11-24T09:58:48Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Well there’s your problem, you are judging claims about what happened in one thread by the behavior in a different thread. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Indeed–it’s a pretty remarkable approach to put your two cents in without having read the relevant thread first. Again, without going too much into the details, it seems to me that **jtgain’s** behavior in the thread I started was significantly different from his behavior in the first thread. I didn’t think I had a problem. The mod note under discussion was: > [@What is the argument against "separate but equal" civil unions?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/202): > > I concur. Any further discussion of the ‘washing machine’ analogy is now forbidden. Jtgain, it has been explained multiple times why it is invalid. Do not invoke it again. If I didn’t think the argument was invalid in the second thread, then it couldn’t have been invalid in the first thread. But on the possibility I might be missing something, I went back and read the originating thread. I slogged through almost 2 pages of people going back and forth about other people’s attitudes of self-righteousness. I then read 4 posts by **jtgain** that were on the topic of SSM. I don’t see how **jtgain** ’s behavior is relevant. He was told that his analogy is invalid and forbidden. My opinion was that his idea was not invalid. > [@Irishman](#): > > That’s exactly what happened. He and everyone else were instructed to drop the argument in that thread and told they could start a new thread on that topic if they desired. Which did occur. No, that’s not what happened, AFAICT. **jtgain** was given the mod instruction not to invoke his argument again. The mod note quoted above was replying to this: > [@What is the argument against "separate but equal" civil unions?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-against-separate-but-equal-civil-unions/704764/197): > > Let’s table this ridiculous “argument” until after the inevitable robot uprising. It’s not clear whether **jtgain** starting a new thread with the argument would have been acceptable before he started the ATMB thread. What happened was that **jtgain** started an ATMB thread in which **LHoD** asked if it would be acceptable to start a thread with the topic, which he did. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261/60 "2014-11-24T15:15:43Z")
I think most people arguing on these boards, at some point, have wished a Mod would make a judgement and ban certain “strings of words which describe something”, because the idea is either offensive, wrong, or is causing some butthurt. IMNSHO, logical fallacies and misrepresentations are far more offensive than bad analogies, but YMMV [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261.md?page=4)