3 ms·
I've unfortunately noticed that many people don't usually accept analogues or metaphors in arguments, unless they are trying to work with you. They either dismi
by emilfihlman 2y ago
I've unfortunately noticed that many people don't usually accept analogues or metaphors in arguments, unless they are trying to work with you. They either dismiss them outright or attack the analogue/metaphor without understanding it's an analogue/metaphor.
This is even worse when they don't like you personally.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoBecause analogies and metaphors are not arguments. They are illustrations. In an argument, you need to show the link between cause and effect, a chain of reasoning.
- emilfihlman 2y agoYou ran straight into the exact issue I brought up.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hunter2_ 2y agoI don't see which part of your original comment actually contains metaphors, which would seem to be a prerequisite for such an offense. Frankly, I don't even see which part of your original comment is an argument in the first place, as it isn't attempting to persuade. The reply is where both of these begin: illustration as a metaphor for metaphor (how meta!), and persuading the reader to take on a belief.
- emilfihlman 2y agoSigh. You made an assumption that I don't know how an argument goes and/or that I don't know how to use an analogue/metaphor, and you attacked me saying people don't accept analogues/metaphors. This is about the same fallacy people perform when they don't accept analogues/metaphors or attack them instead. They claim it doesn't relate or illustrate, when infact they just fail to understand. So yeah, you ran into the same issue. E: And yes you are another user account, but since you defend the OP I assume you also hold the same view she does.
- benfortuna 2y agoHere's an analogy for you: strawman. There was no attack from what I read.
- emilfihlman 2y ago"Because analogies and metaphors are not arguments. They are illustrations. In an argument, you need to show the link between cause and effect, a chain of reasoning." Presents that I would use an analogue/metaphor as an argument and/or that I don't know what they are or how to use them, which is an attack on my integrity/character/skills/etc.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoSorry, I interpreted the term "accept" in your post to mean that you were attempting to use metaphors/analogies as your argument (the argument itself being the only thing that can be accepted/rejected).
- emilfihlman 2y agoNp, it happens. By not accepting I meant they might say "what does that have to do with this?", "that's not related" or "that has nothing to do with this". Ie. they completely skip over and don't accept the fact that it's an analogue and dismiss it or attack the analogue itself after.
- hunter2_ 2y agoI wrote about what I literally see, not about what I assume: I see a top-level comment which itself contains no metaphors and which itself is not an argument but a recounting. Therefore, it's a non sequitur to consider any reply as exemplifying the fallacy being discussed. I'm able to defend the other user from nonsense regardless of whether I share their view (though I do, most likely).
- emilfihlman 2y ago
- tryauuum 2y agoIndeed, an example I saw was comparing linux kernel to a car, the next poster doesn't like it and tries to refine it. The argument dissolves into a discussion of cars I personally despise analogues. They are always leaky and people pick weak or emotional ones. Anything which can be explained with an analogy can be explained without it.
- emilfihlman 2y agoYeah, and I somewhat agree with you. The problem is that for tacking double standards an analogue is kind of required, and analogues are good for trying to explain to a person who doesn't understand the matter but understands or is familair with another matter which can serve as an analogue.