# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 59
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/analogies-banned-in-gd-part-ii/705261)._