3 ms·

This is like saying food makes us fat, ban food! Nonsensical

coldtea 11y ago
If we're to use logic, how about use it properly? For one, food is essential for our survival. Powerpoint is not. So while banning food would be nonsensical (for that reason), banning Powerpoint doesn't have the same issue. A better example would be: "French fries make us fat, ban french fries". Not as nonsensical. French fries are not essential to eat in the first place, and cause harm according to most studies.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  And thus, after banning french fries, the world was less fat. I think you made GP's point better than he did. Banning the medium and hoping that fixes the root issue is a bit foolish. Not to say banning the medium isn't always a bad idea, but doesn't mean it'll help.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >And thus, after banning french fries, the world was less fat. Well, maybe not french frieds, but HFCS sure.
- igravious 11y ago
  In fairness, didn't they use a bad analogy rather than faulty logic? Apart from that I approve of your pedantry.
- ksk 11y ago
  >For one, food is essential for our survival. The analogy isn't based on 'essentiality'. The point that was made, was correct - Banning something does not solve the original problem. Sorry for spelling it out. I didn't realize comprehending it would be so troublesome for some. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. If an analogy can't break down, it wouldn't be called an analogy. You would just say the thing that was to be said.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >The point that was made, was correct - Banning something does not solve the original problem That point might have been correct, but it wasn't the one made. If the analogy wasn't intented to be based on "essentiality" then picking something undeniably essential (and pointing that it's "nonsensical" to ban it because of some problem it causes) was the wrong choice. But actually the point wasn't even correct. The correct point would be rather: "Banning something does not solve the original problem in _some_ cases". For there are many cases were banning something does solve the original problem. It might not solve it 100%, but it does solve it to a satisfying degree. That's the core idea behind the law banning things actually, and has worked for millenia. >There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. No, but there are such things as badly formulated analogies.
    - ksk 11y ago
      It is within the realm of possibility that you simply interpreted the comment incorrectly, and chose to be pedantic about minutia that a reasonable person would not.

If we're to use logic, how about use it properly? For one, food is essential for our survival. Powerpoint is not. So while banning food would be nonsensical (for that reason), banning Powerpoint doesn't have the same issue. A better example would be: "French fries make us fat, ban french fries". Not as nonsensical. French fries are not essential to eat in the first place, and cause harm according to most studies.

scrollaway 11y ago
And thus, after banning french fries, the world was less fat. I think you made GP's point better than he did. Banning the medium and hoping that fixes the root issue is a bit foolish. Not to say banning the medium isn't always a bad idea, but doesn't mean it'll help.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >And thus, after banning french fries, the world was less fat. Well, maybe not french frieds, but HFCS sure.
igravious 11y ago
In fairness, didn't they use a bad analogy rather than faulty logic? Apart from that I approve of your pedantry.
ksk 11y ago
>For one, food is essential for our survival. The analogy isn't based on 'essentiality'. The point that was made, was correct - Banning something does not solve the original problem. Sorry for spelling it out. I didn't realize comprehending it would be so troublesome for some. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. If an analogy can't break down, it wouldn't be called an analogy. You would just say the thing that was to be said.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >The point that was made, was correct - Banning something does not solve the original problem That point might have been correct, but it wasn't the one made. If the analogy wasn't intented to be based on "essentiality" then picking something undeniably essential (and pointing that it's "nonsensical" to ban it because of some problem it causes) was the wrong choice. But actually the point wasn't even correct. The correct point would be rather: "Banning something does not solve the original problem in _some_ cases". For there are many cases were banning something does solve the original problem. It might not solve it 100%, but it does solve it to a satisfying degree. That's the core idea behind the law banning things actually, and has worked for millenia. >There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. No, but there are such things as badly formulated analogies.
  - ksk 11y ago
    It is within the realm of possibility that you simply interpreted the comment incorrectly, and chose to be pedantic about minutia that a reasonable person would not.