19 ms·
You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd
by therobots927 1y ago
You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.
- lotsofpulp 1y agota8645 did not make an analogy, nor did they use it to support an argument. They posited that a similar series of events happen before, and predicted they will happen again.
- therobots927 1y agoThat's the definition of using an analogy to support an argument.
- pessimizer 1y agoWhy, pray tell, would a similar series of events be relevant to a completely different series of events except as analogy? Let me use an extremely close analogy to illustrate: Imagine someone shot a basketball, and it didn't go into the hoop. Why would telling a story about somebody else who once shot a basketball which failed to go into the hoop be helpful or relevant?
- cgriswald 1y agoYour extremely close analogy gets to the crux of why people are disagreeing here: It doesn’t have to be analogy. You can be pointing out an equivalence.
- therobots927 1y agoRegardless this was my whole point. The original point was a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
- cgriswald 1y agoI'd be interested in your reason for thinking so but I think you can see your supporting argument is not compelling: > And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. > I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]