3 ms·

Echoing Spooky23's comment: "Really?" Did you really bring in Nazi Germany into a discussion on Airbnb and its practices and now illegality for short term renta

by yladiz 10y ago

Echoing Spooky23's comment: "Really?" Did you really bring in Nazi Germany into a discussion on Airbnb and its practices and now illegality for short term rentals?

csallen 10y ago
It was a perfectly valid analogy for the point (s)he was making (that laws aren't always just), and I see no reason to object just because the analogous subject was Nazi Germany. Making an analogy between two things is not the same as saying those two things are equivalent.
- yladiz 10y ago
  Sure, it's a valid analogy, but there are better ones that could be made instead of going directly for that that don't force readers to compare the two.
  - csallen 10y ago
    What possible analogy doesn't force readers to compare two things? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12811091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12811091
- mikeash 10y ago
  The whole point of an analogy is to ease thinking by using something the reader is already familiar with. When your analogy brings along so much baggage, it completely fails in its task and just serves to disrupt the conversation. It may be technically valid, but it's a terrible analogy to use.
  - csallen 10y ago
    Au contraire, Hitler and the Nazis are great analogy material for exactly the reason you stated: Everyone is familiar with them, so they are the perfect stand-in for <bad people> in any analogy. I'm not sure what you mean about the baggage, but an analogy always compares specific similarities between two otherwise different things, and therefore there will always be irrelevant differences, aka "baggage". If the listener insists on highlighting these irrelevant differences, what can the speaker do? Example: Person A: John wouldn't do anything evil like that. He has a family and kids! Person B: Well, let's not forget that Hitler also had a family and kids. Person A: John is not Hitler! Person B's analogy is perfectly rational and effective. He's making the point that simply having a family and kids will not stop people from committing even the greatest evils (and therefore probably not lesser evils, either). However, Person A ignores this obvious line of reasoning, and instead focuses on a total strawman: assuming that Person B said that John === Hitler. But what could Person B have done to prevent this? Simply not using Hitler wouldn't work: Person A: John wouldn't do anything evil like that. He has a family and kids! Person B: Well, let's not forget that <some other bad person besides Hitler> also had a family and kids. Person A: John is not <some other bad person besides Hitler>! Person A is still factually correct in his final statement, yet it's still a total strawman. If he insists on employing this reasoning, then it's impossible for Person B to ever use an analogy, because an analogy always uses as its subject two different things, which are by definition not the same as each other in every single way.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  It's an analogy designed for an inappropriate level of emotional impact, rather than to clarify a relationship between two things. It's a valid analogy, but a misbalanced one.

by yladiz 10y ago

Echoing Spooky23's comment: "Really?" Did you really bring in Nazi Germany into a discussion on Airbnb and its practices and now illegality for short term rentals?

csallen 10y ago

It was a perfectly valid analogy for the point (s)he was making (that laws aren't always just), and I see no reason to object just because the analogous subject was Nazi Germany. Making an analogy between two things is not the same as saying those two things are equivalent.

yladiz 10y ago
Sure, it's a valid analogy, but there are better ones that could be made instead of going directly for that that don't force readers to compare the two.
- csallen 10y ago
  What possible analogy doesn't force readers to compare two things? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12811091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12811091
mikeash 10y ago
The whole point of an analogy is to ease thinking by using something the reader is already familiar with. When your analogy brings along so much baggage, it completely fails in its task and just serves to disrupt the conversation. It may be technically valid, but it's a terrible analogy to use.
- csallen 10y ago
  Au contraire, Hitler and the Nazis are great analogy material for exactly the reason you stated: Everyone is familiar with them, so they are the perfect stand-in for <bad people> in any analogy. I'm not sure what you mean about the baggage, but an analogy always compares specific similarities between two otherwise different things, and therefore there will always be irrelevant differences, aka "baggage". If the listener insists on highlighting these irrelevant differences, what can the speaker do? Example: Person A: John wouldn't do anything evil like that. He has a family and kids! Person B: Well, let's not forget that Hitler also had a family and kids. Person A: John is not Hitler! Person B's analogy is perfectly rational and effective. He's making the point that simply having a family and kids will not stop people from committing even the greatest evils (and therefore probably not lesser evils, either). However, Person A ignores this obvious line of reasoning, and instead focuses on a total strawman: assuming that Person B said that John === Hitler. But what could Person B have done to prevent this? Simply not using Hitler wouldn't work: Person A: John wouldn't do anything evil like that. He has a family and kids! Person B: Well, let's not forget that <some other bad person besides Hitler> also had a family and kids. Person A: John is not <some other bad person besides Hitler>! Person A is still factually correct in his final statement, yet it's still a total strawman. If he insists on employing this reasoning, then it's impossible for Person B to ever use an analogy, because an analogy always uses as its subject two different things, which are by definition not the same as each other in every single way.
khedoros1 10y ago
It's an analogy designed for an inappropriate level of emotional impact, rather than to clarify a relationship between two things. It's a valid analogy, but a misbalanced one.