2 ms·

"Imagine a hypothetical and quite silly scenario, which I've constructed to be obviously absurd" isn't a great rhetorical device. There's no need for analogizi

by hungie 2y ago

"Imagine a hypothetical and quite silly scenario, which I've constructed to be obviously absurd" isn't a great rhetorical device. There's no need for analogizing here, we have a clear scenario we can discuss directly - a woman was asked to leave an event discussing motherhood because her baby was deemed a distraction. We are plenty capable of just discussing that without made up scenarios.

bumby 2y ago
Analogies are often useful to remove the emotional charge of a discussion (like those related to parenting) to try and pin down more rational principles.
- hungie 2y ago
  Yes, they are often useful for that. Not in this case.
  - bumby 2y ago
    This reads as a shallow dismissal. If your goal is to arrive at first principles, I disagree. As others have said, it's difficult for many to have a discussion about parenting because it's so central to many people's identity that it becomes emotionally charged. It's much more difficult to ascertain core principles amid emotional reactions. Which part do you disagree with: that people are sensitive to judgements related to parenting or that it's harder to get a principled argument from an emotional reaction? Or put differently, what is unique about this case where you don't think those rules apply?
    - hungie 2y ago
      It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, parenting is emotional (and being emotional isn't negative), and the situation was quite straightforward and needed no simplification.
      - bumby 2y ago
        >It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, You may want to familiarize yourself with the HN guidelines: >Please don't post shallow dismissals >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html A better response could have either answered which of those points you actually disagree with and why, or if you don’t disagree with the points but just the analogy, offer up a better analogy. >the situation was quite straightforward and needed no simplification. To reiterate, the point of the analogy is not to simplify as you've suggested, but to cast it in a less emotional light given the impediments strong emotion can put up to rational discourse. To clarify further, I never said emotions are are inherently negative. I did say they can inhibit a discussion that is trying to get to rational underlying principles. We have lots of societal arrangements that acknowledge and try to mitigate this fact. Considering your reaction and apparent unwillingness/inability to answer very direct questions related to parenting seems to prove that point, as do the other commenters who have acknowledged any comments on parenting can become a third-rail in discussion due to this fact.

by hungie 2y ago

bumby 2y ago

Analogies are often useful to remove the emotional charge of a discussion (like those related to parenting) to try and pin down more rational principles.

hungie 2y ago
Yes, they are often useful for that. Not in this case.
- bumby 2y ago
  This reads as a shallow dismissal. If your goal is to arrive at first principles, I disagree. As others have said, it's difficult for many to have a discussion about parenting because it's so central to many people's identity that it becomes emotionally charged. It's much more difficult to ascertain core principles amid emotional reactions. Which part do you disagree with: that people are sensitive to judgements related to parenting or that it's harder to get a principled argument from an emotional reaction? Or put differently, what is unique about this case where you don't think those rules apply?
  - hungie 2y ago
    It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, parenting is emotional (and being emotional isn't negative), and the situation was quite straightforward and needed no simplification.
    - bumby 2y ago
      >It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, You may want to familiarize yourself with the HN guidelines: >Please don't post shallow dismissals >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html A better response could have either answered which of those points you actually disagree with and why, or if you don’t disagree with the points but just the analogy, offer up a better analogy. >the situation was quite straightforward and needed no simplification. To reiterate, the point of the analogy is not to simplify as you've suggested, but to cast it in a less emotional light given the impediments strong emotion can put up to rational discourse. To clarify further, I never said emotions are are inherently negative. I did say they can inhibit a discussion that is trying to get to rational underlying principles. We have lots of societal arrangements that acknowledge and try to mitigate this fact. Considering your reaction and apparent unwillingness/inability to answer very direct questions related to parenting seems to prove that point, as do the other commenters who have acknowledged any comments on parenting can become a third-rail in discussion due to this fact.