7 ms·
you conveniently left out number three in that you connected (1) and (2) via analogical reasoning. of course, i suspect that's what they disagree with.
by nikofeyn 6y ago
you conveniently left out number three in that you connected (1) and (2) via analogical reasoning. of course, i suspect that's what they disagree with.
- subhobroto 6y ago> i suspect that's what they disagree with Ah, I see your point. Equating WHO to Fox News directly as organizations does not make any sense. They are not even on the same domain. I assumed, the readership would not conflate them on all possible attributes. The reason for my statement was specifically to point out the flaw that WHO is guided solely by medical reasoning. Just like it would be a flaw to assume Fox News is the unbiased broker of news events. Is the connection that cambalache thought I was making that WHO and Fox News are both brokers of medical news and information? If so, I'm at a loss on how to better phrase "WHO is a political organization with medical leanings just like Fox News is an entertainment channel that covers newslike topics." to convey my intent and would really appreciate better phrasing.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y agoI would posit that the analogy is unnecessary and detrimental and that the statement "WHO is a political organization with medical leanings" stands perfectly well on its own. As have been outlined in this thread, the analogy serves more to lead the reader to wonder whether you meant to equate the two in quality or some other attribute(s) moreso than it does to explain the meaning of the first statement.