3 ms·

I think that's a bad analogy, because the gym club does not benefit from your using the gym, only your paying dues. The ideal gym member pays dues but never com

I think that's a bad analogy, because the gym club does not benefit from your using the gym, only your paying dues. The ideal gym member pays dues but never comes. By contrast, the EU benefits from buying things from and selling things to the UK. Products made in the UK did not suddenly become less safe because of Brexit.

raattgift 6y ago
I think you could have exercised your thinking in another direction by improving the analogy by e.g. considering a cooperative gym where in addition to fees, the members are required to take an active part in maintenance of the facilities and equipment, enforcement of the rules, hiring and supervising the day-to-day staff (including top paid management), and so forth, and in exchange are not merely allowed access to and use of the facilities, but a share of any surpluses returned from its activities (applied as discounts, or returned outright as a rebate). Sometimes upon finding a flaw in an analogy it is at least self-instructive to consider whether the flaw can be repaired rather than abandoned :: sometimes upon finding a flaw in a cooperative venture it is at least worth considering how the flaw can be repaired rather than withdrawing from the cooperative venture.
- yawboakye 6y ago
  Analogies are not tools for arguments. They change the environment of the situation, tweak severity, and cut corners and successively (and in fact criminally) gloss over important details in the real scenario.
  - raattgift 6y ago
    Is hyperbole? "Criminally", really? Analogies are perfectly fine ways to throw away superfluous detail to focus on salient matters. Of course there are bad analogies, including, as you imply, those deliberately chosen so as to throw away relevant detail, however one can still improve such analogies rather than reject them -- let alone all analogies -- out of hand. Not only are they tools for arguments -- proof by existence -- but they are frequently useful tools for resolving arguments, precisely because they can help choose which are the important details in the real scenario. "Your analogy can be improved by <insert idea>" is also simply more friendly than "all analogies are terrible" or even "your analogy is terrible", which is something to bear in mind if you enjoy friendly debates.
Context_free 6y ago
> the EU benefits from buying things from and selling things to the UK English economist David Ricardo made a similar statement in the early 19th century. The example he used was Portuguese wine being traded for English cloth. He said both countries benefited from their specializations - England producing cloth, Portugal producing wine. Ricardo's work is a foundation for a modern view of comparative advantage and free trade. English economist Joan Robinson revisited this example over a century later. She asked what the results over the past century were for the economies of England and Portugal in pursuing this course - one country industrializing to build textile mills, one country remaining more agricultural with much less industrialization. I'm sure I don't have to tell you what she found in that investigation, the answer is obvious.

raattgift 6y ago

I think you could have exercised your thinking in another direction by improving the analogy by e.g. considering a cooperative gym where in addition to fees, the members are required to take an active part in maintenance of the facilities and equipment, enforcement of the rules, hiring and supervising the day-to-day staff (including top paid management), and so forth, and in exchange are not merely allowed access to and use of the facilities, but a share of any surpluses returned from its activities (applied as discounts, or returned outright as a rebate). Sometimes upon finding a flaw in an analogy it is at least self-instructive to consider whether the flaw can be repaired rather than abandoned :: sometimes upon finding a flaw in a cooperative venture it is at least worth considering how the flaw can be repaired rather than withdrawing from the cooperative venture.

yawboakye 6y ago
Analogies are not tools for arguments. They change the environment of the situation, tweak severity, and cut corners and successively (and in fact criminally) gloss over important details in the real scenario.
- raattgift 6y ago
  Is hyperbole? "Criminally", really? Analogies are perfectly fine ways to throw away superfluous detail to focus on salient matters. Of course there are bad analogies, including, as you imply, those deliberately chosen so as to throw away relevant detail, however one can still improve such analogies rather than reject them -- let alone all analogies -- out of hand. Not only are they tools for arguments -- proof by existence -- but they are frequently useful tools for resolving arguments, precisely because they can help choose which are the important details in the real scenario. "Your analogy can be improved by <insert idea>" is also simply more friendly than "all analogies are terrible" or even "your analogy is terrible", which is something to bear in mind if you enjoy friendly debates.

Context_free 6y ago

> the EU benefits from buying things from and selling things to the UK English economist David Ricardo made a similar statement in the early 19th century. The example he used was Portuguese wine being traded for English cloth. He said both countries benefited from their specializations - England producing cloth, Portugal producing wine. Ricardo's work is a foundation for a modern view of comparative advantage and free trade. English economist Joan Robinson revisited this example over a century later. She asked what the results over the past century were for the economies of England and Portugal in pursuing this course - one country industrializing to build textile mills, one country remaining more agricultural with much less industrialization. I'm sure I don't have to tell you what she found in that investigation, the answer is obvious.