4 ms·

The point of analogies isn't to claim that the two things being compared are exactly identical, it's to draw attention to the ways in which they're similar that

The point of analogies isn't to claim that the two things being compared are exactly identical, it's to draw attention to the ways in which they're similar that are relevant to the point being discussed. By the way, I never said anything like "power tripping pro-MAGA border guards are okay because there are volcanoes in Iceland", so your lightning vs. speed limits analogy isn't relevant.

anigbrowl 1y ago
Nonsense. Your presence in Iceland or not has no influence on whether a volcano there erupts, whereas a sharp drop in tourism is a market signal that may influence policy in the future (not necessarily under the same administration).
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  The original post of this subthread: > Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea. did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective. It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists). I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
- ben_w 1y ago
  Conversely, a sharp drop in tourism to Iceland is a market signal that a something along the lines of "volcano has exploded" has happened (what with there currently being few other reasons for such a drop), and "a tourist was killed when a volcano exploded" has a non-zero chance of modifying Iceland's tourism policies.

anigbrowl 1y ago

Nonsense. Your presence in Iceland or not has no influence on whether a volcano there erupts, whereas a sharp drop in tourism is a market signal that may influence policy in the future (not necessarily under the same administration).

School-Cotton 1y ago
The original post of this subthread: > Going to the USA as a tourist might be the most stupid action that one can make at this time. Unless you have a dying mother or father, there is absolutely no reason to visit this country. It reminds me of the tourists that used to go to North Korea for fun some years ago, it never was a good idea. did not claim that one has a moral obligation to avoid the US, but rather tried to claim that it was stupid to do so from a purely rational perspective. It’s the latter point I disagree with. People who avoid the US due to the possibility of personal harm by border guards are being irrational (unless perhaps they’re prominent pro-Palestinian activists). I never said there’s no reason not visit the US. Avoiding it as a political protest against the current administration is a perfectly decent reason! But that’s not what was originally claimed.
ben_w 1y ago
Conversely, a sharp drop in tourism to Iceland is a market signal that a something along the lines of "volcano has exploded" has happened (what with there currently being few other reasons for such a drop), and "a tourist was killed when a volcano exploded" has a non-zero chance of modifying Iceland's tourism policies.