Considering the invalid analogy spawned a currently 62 post thread discussing the subject, it’s rather obvious that the original incarnation was not in fact invalid - at least for discussion purposes. This is more evidence the original action was not a good call.
Well, I’m sure we’ll get it all sorted out in Analogies Banned in GD with a Vengeance.
That’s some dangerous, radical thinking there. I like the cut of your jib.
jtgain debated the analogy far more substantively, in one post in the new thread, than he had in all his uses of the analogy in the original thread. The problem isn’t just with the analogy (although it’s truly terrible); the problem is with how he used it.
I’m holding out for Analogies Banned in GD II - Eclectic Boogaloo!
Which doesn’t change the fact that the analogy wasn’t invalid. Same posters, same topic - just a different thread. It’s not like changing threads magically changes the analogy from invalid to valid. The foreclosing of the discussion in the original thread was not a good call.
Hold up: the analogy IS invalid. It’s a terrible analogy. The best defense it’s gotten is from someone who calls it “retarded.” The fact that someone is participating constructively in a debate doesn’t magically turn their argument into a good one, it just means their approach to argument is more productive.
The problem is with a debate that goes like–and I’m oversimplifying here, but this is essentially how it appeared to go–
Poster A: [terrible analogy]!
Poster B: This analogy is terrible because of reasons X, Y, and Z!
Poster A: Why does nobody care about [terrible analogy]?
Posters C, D, E: People have told you why your analogy sucks, and to this let’s add reasons Q, R, S.
Poster A: Oh, you people, oppressing [terrible analogy]!
At that point, the mod isn’t shutting down debate; Poster A, by refusing to engage reasons Q, R, S, X, Y, Z, instead just mockingly repeated [terrible analogy], has already shut debate down.
That’s how the first thread essentially went.
The new thread went like this:
Poster B: This analogy is terrible because of reasons X, Y, and Z!
Poster A [after some prodding]: Okay, but here’s why I disagree with X, and here’s why I disagree with Y, and here’s why I disagree with Z, and so [terrible analogy].
Posters C, D, E: Actually, reasons X, Y, and Z are good reasons, for reasons X1, Y1, and Z1, plus also Q, R, S.
Poster A: [crickets]
Poster F: This analogy is retarded, but Q, R, S are not good reasons, and here’s my logic behind it.
and so on.
That’s far more productive a debate format than just mockingly repeating [terrible analogy] without substantively responding to the objections folks have raised to it.
Substitute “terrible analogy” with “opinion I don’t agree with”, and what you’re describing is the same for many of the GD discussions I’ve read.
And it shouldn’t be. If you’re going to continue responding to a thread, the only point for doing so is to respond to what others say. If folks raise substantive objections to your brilliant opinions and your only response it to repeat your brilliant opinions without responding to the responses, you’re better off not posting any further.
**Moderator Note:
**
This has devolved into argument between LHOD and … everybody else, I guess.
Not the place to be beating on one another. Take it elsewhere.