No they’re not.
No it isn’t.
I’d say that there’s two objectives to the Penny story:
- Let’s get out of ascribing intentions to things and, instead, trust each other as two people who have no ill-intent or subversive interests.
- And so, yes, just answer the question asked (which, you have now done, though the conversation continues.)
Analogies are comparisons. They are imperfect by nature, because no two things are exactly alike. It is entirely possible for something to be true in the analogy, but not be true in the original, because you missed important parts.
To deal with truth, you usually need to deal with it head on. An analogy for one small part might be useful to get your head around the situation, but an extended analogy is going to run into problems. Analogies remove nuances specific to the situation at hand.
Now, when communicating with others, analogies do make more sense. I agree they can help with ruts, where the specific situation is getting in the way. But then I’d also say they need to be kept short and tight, because it’s still very easy for them to go too far.
And you also need to say what you meant first, and not just use the analogy. I also have no idea what you were talking about with the Penny hypothetical. I don’t disagree that you should ignore Penny, but I don’t know what in the world that has to do with anything going on here.
Arguments should try to be straight forward. Analogies are a supplement for argument, not a replacement. They can help you make a point you just made a bit clearer.
I also have no idea how they can help break through dishonesty. Nor do I see anyone discussing with you being dishonest.
I do see a lot of you missing the point, though.
In that case, it’s a very bad analogy. In that analogy, Penny would be Buck (or whoever else you were addresing). And Penny is very clearly a deluded idiot who seemingly has ill intent. She’s not someone to be listened to.
And using indirect analogies at all is going to make you look less trustworthy. If you’re not straightforward, it looks like you’re trying to be manipulative. And, since we have to figure out the analogies, you make it harder to actually address the underlying issue.
If you want to make the point that you’re both acting in good faith, just say “Hey, I think we’re both arguing in good faith here.”
I don’t think that I was ascribing any particularly ill intention to you. If you can point to a place where I did this please do so. I don’t think that you are a troll. I don’t think that you hate or want to rape women. I do think that you doubled down on a proposition that was mindbogglingly wrong with strong misogynistic implications.
And just to be clear you weren’t directly pitted for your political feelings regarding Manchin or Kavanaugh. If you had simply argued that short of an actual conviction of rape the allegations against Kavanaugh were not sufficient to bar him from serving on the court and Manchin was right to approve him, I would have staunchly disagreed but not bothered pitting you.
It was your claim that it take a mind reader to tell that doing to sort of things that Ford claimed happened to her were done as an attempt to sexually assault her. To say otherwise basically implies that one can’t be accused of attempted rape, because you never really know what he was trying to do.
Which would be sexual assault. Would you vote to convict him for sexual assault?
Did Ms Ford pull up her pants, after the attack? Did she re-button her shirt? Did his hand go down her pants and touch her inappropriately? Did she stumble and fall over her lowered pants when running out of the room? She doesn’t claim any of these things.
He could have been so drunk that he simply couldn’t manage to shift her clothing in any appreciable way. But, likewise, he might have accidentally fell on her and been randomly wriggling around, drunk off his ass and unable to get himself righted.
We have to be honest and admit that we weren’t in the room.
When we look at some black guy with gold teeth and think, “Yep, that looks like a murderer.” And we listen to testimony that’s not terribly clear and contains a lot of subjective elements, and we choose to trust the worst interpretation because of how we feel about the suspect; I’d personally say that, that’s not being an honest juror.
Yes, that black guy with the gold teeth may well be a murderer. Kavanaugh might have full-on intended to rape Christine Blaise Ford and only failed at it due to inebriation and a swimsuit. But a lack of sufficient evidence is just that. It’s not a statement of innocence, it’s not an exoneration, it’s just an everyday outcome in every day life that some things are uncertain and unknowable. We might look at that guy and, deep down in our cynical, racist, partisan, or otherwise impure soul and think to ourselves, “I know that a-hole dun it!” But we can also put that aside, go onto the internet, and say that the evidence isn’t there and we’re being dishonest to profess certainty.
Saying, “I wouldn’t throw that guy in jail, on the basis of this specific evidence.” Doesn’t have any greater meaning than “the evidence isn’t sufficient to make a reasonable determination on the question”.
And while the Republican view of guilt might be less charitable, I’m generally given to the understand that the view of guilt on the Left is pretty hardcore in the camp of “Innocent until proven guilty.”
If Manchin is a true blue Lefty, and he doesn’t see sufficient evidence to convict the guy of a crime, my understanding and expectation would be that he’d treat the guy as an innocent.
And maybe this guy just really hates cans. We can never know.
Yes. My certainly that he committed sexual assault is not “beyond reasonable doubt”. It is beyond “the preponderance of the evidence”, and it’s well beyond “reasonably likely”, which is the standard of evidence suitable for hiring someone.
Also, it’s frankly absurd and offensive to suggest that a woman would confuse a drunk guy stumbling into her with a man attempting rape.
Are those your baseline requirements for sexual assault? They aren’t mine, or most people’s for that matter.
If you start with the assumption that Ms Ford is telling the truth, then no, this is absolute bullshit. If you want to accuse her of lying or getting the facts wrong, then accuse her of that. But quit trying to argue that grinding his hips on her and trying to remove her clothing is innocent drunken behavior.
Remember when people said your analogies suck and just confuse people? You’re doing it again.
I very much object to the use of the first plural pronoun, here. You may think that looks like a murderer. We do not.
But lets imagine Sage made an analogy and instead of trying to understand it you got in your time machine, went back to the civil rights movement but forgot it was halloween and you were still wearing your ghost costume. What then?
What’s the precise rules on this?
Harry Fishbuns was accused of robbing a store as a college student. There’s a reasonable likelihood that he did, in fact, do it but not sufficient to convict, criminally.
Which occupations are Harry banned from? For how long? Having failed to go to jail, how does Harry ever atone? If he is forced to live on the streets, homeless, do we give him food and shelter or he just needs to figure that out himself?
Are people with a different answer from you just people with a different opinion? Or are they all crazy folks who need to be rounded up and purged?
Now, I already said that I would not hire Kavanaugh, on the basis of Ford’s accusations and, specifically, in how he reacted to them - a matter that we have no doubt on, since we can see it on TV. But Joe Manchin is a different person than me. Why can’t he have a nuanced, practical, and reasonable view on the specific matter and on an array of matters that might also influence his choices? Why can’t we believe that he’s balancing bads better than any of us could ever hope to?
I do not understand why this conversation is not happening in a pit thread dedicated specifically to you.
Personally, I think that pre-judging a person on their skin color, tooth color, or political lean is inappropriate. If you wish to pit me for that, you’re free to do so.
what were you Thinking?
I don’t think LHOD was arguing against analogies in general. I’m pretty sure he’s used them himself. He was saying that YOU shouldn’t use them. Because your analogies are incoherent and confusing.
There is no precise rule, and it depends on the job. I was an actuary. I might hire someone as an actuary who probably committed sexual assault as a young man. I might hire someone who probably committed murder 30 years ago as an actuary, too. I wouldn’t hire someone as an actuary if i thought they were at all likely to have ever embezzled. And i wouldn’t hire someone to teach high school if i thought they’d ever committed sexual assault, but might hire someone i suspected of having embezzled.
I wouldn’t hire someone for the Supreme Court who had probably done any of those things.
Why do you keep talking about these things? We’re talking about sexual assault. Is there someone here, other than you, that is throwing out batshit-insane crap about Black men with gold teeth?
You know what, fuck it. I know exactly why you are mentioning it, because it allows you to pretend you are the only sane person considering things from all angles. It’s a bullshit tangent that is offensive in its stupidity, and we are all dumber for having read it.
I suspect that if you were in a jury pool and offered up the discussion that has existed in this thread, you’d be dismissed for cause, since you are creating a greater standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt than the law provides.
Of course we weren’t in the room. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t reach a conclusion about what happened.
In a court of law, a fact can be established by the testimony of just one person. If you find that person credible, you can accept their testimony as fact.
So, if you believe Ford, that is enough to conclude that a sexual assault occurred.
Harem anime is not a documentary.