Regarding Your Stupid Argument
Hi. If you’re reading this, it’s because you just responded to an analogy of mine by treating it as an equivalence.
My analogy took a real-life situation (“x“) and compared it to something far more extreme (“y“) to make a point. The choice to use an extreme example was deliberate. I was making a point, and the extreme example y illustrates the point in a way that cannot be denied precisely because of how extreme it is. When you responded to this, you said “oh, so you’re saying x is just as bad as y” — thus demonstrating that you have missed my point entirely.
In short, this is you:
If I provided this link to you, two things are true. I am frustrated with you — but also (and this is important) I think you’re an intelligent person who just happens to be making a dumb argument. If I didn’t think you were intelligent, I wouldn’t bother trying to explain this to you.
Thanks for your time. And do better.
This is hilarious. I love it!
Time123 (b0628d) — 5/23/2021 @ 11:28 amnoun: analogy; plural noun: analogies
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
“an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies”
a correspondence or partial similarity.
“the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia”
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
Time123 (b0628d) — 5/23/2021 @ 12:22 pm“works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature”
Somebody is on fire today. 🙂
norcal (6e6099) — 5/23/2021 @ 1:37 pmThere was more than a little bit of point missing on your side, too, Patrick.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 5/23/2021 @ 1:53 pmKevin,
You’re one of my favorite commenters, but I think you have this one wrong. It’s not a big deal. Nobody’s perfect. 🙂
norcal (6e6099) — 5/23/2021 @ 2:29 pmPatterico,
I haven’t spent much time thinking about this subject before and I’m still working through my thoughts. My education required that I know what an analogy is, but they’re not encouraged in technical writing. I’m not trying to keep circling back and poking at you, nor do I expect you to give me a mini writing lesson if you’re no longer interested in the conversation. Throat clearly done, I’ve had a thought.
Is part of the debate here about the degree of similarity implied by an analogy?
A hyperliterally reading of an analogy might hold that the only intended comparison is the most direct and obvious. In this case that would mean that the only intended comparison is that people accused of wrong doing oppose their investigation.
A less literal reading might look at context, the broader conversation, and past statements to infer what other similarities are intended beyond the most obvious and direct. They might also ask of the subject of the analogy is being intentionally insulted by the comparison.
It seems to me that this is a balance that the writer must maintain. A totally innocuous analogy has no impact and evokes no imagery. You might well as just write your assertion. If a horrific and offensive comparison is made the intended point may be overwhelmed by trying to understand how deep the writer is implying the similarities go. It seems like this balance will also be impacted by the reader. The more evocative the comparison or sensitive to insult the subject the more likely people will be to skip past the main point and focus on what other similarities are being implied.
I think this also touches on the question of how much the intent of the author matter versus how much the words will stand on their own.
Very interested in your thoughts as well as Kevin M’s. Cross posting this on other thread.
Time123 (69b2fc) — 5/24/2021 @ 6:44 amI’m the one to whom you responded. While I understand your point and appreciate the calmness of it, I was aware that my comment did not achieve the goal you believe I was trying to achieve. Yet what I was seeking to achieve, whether you approve or disapprove (pretty sure I know which one) was to mock the over-the-top examples used to make your point.
Twitter is interesting. I’m not a trial lawyer, I’m a deal lawyer, and when I’m forced to do a long weekend workday one of the great things about Twitter is that after a couple of pages of ugly contract language I can take a quick mental break by commenting on something on Twitter. I long ago stopped thinking constructive discourse is possible in a 280-character format, and yesterday the Spotify argument got crazier and crazier. People have a right not to participate in Spotify (actually laws make it harder than it should be for lots of lawyerless artists to opt out) but it’s an ugly trend that went a way for a bit in the last 40 years after Donald Wildmon started it rolling in the 80s. So I’d shot back plenty of remarks to others by the time I got to yours, and one of the reasons I mocked your comment somewhat was because I thought it wasn’t at your level – I’ve read this blog for years. I probably can do better, you’re right. Will I? Sometimes. Other times I’ll fail, because Twitter is a great place to throw low-quality comments as a petty distraction. I know you can do better too. Thanks for reading this if you’ve gotten this far.
Lazlo Toth (ea6f05) — 1/30/2022 @ 6:14 pm