On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Bradley Hook <bhook@kssb.net> wrote:

Analogies are a fundamental mechanism for explanation and argumentation,
and anyone who refuses to (or is incapable of) interpreting them is also
refusing to (or incapable of) participating fully in a productive
argument. While it may be that his analogies seem far fetched to some,
this could be simply the result of an inability to interpret the
material in an objective manner; it does not reduce the validity of his
point. I do agree that he could have chosen better examples in some
cases, but this is purely opinion.

You're being an apologist.   I'm sorry, but if you stretch out the boundaries far enough _anything_ is a valid analogy.  Both Sol and myself contain hydrogen.  Therefore when the sun gets spots it's like me getting zits.  By your reasoning that's a "far fetched" but still valid analogy.  I'm sorry, but that's bunk.  You can argue that "valid" can be just about anything, but if you stretch that concept that far then it becomes worthless.  There is a limit to "valid".

There are some key words I used.  "Cogent".  "Rational".  "Reasoned".  While those terms obviously can be very subjective when applied to analogies, what we've been seeing on this list from Leo is clearly not even within those loose boundaries.  He's obviously a bright person, but all he spews are straw men, red herrings, and hyperbole - and thus discussions he's involved in usually end up becoming a shouting match, as he repeatedly dips into the bin of logical fallacies (hrm, was that ad hominem on my part?...).

His Paris Hilton argument is a classic straw man.  He uses her because most people despise her, and takes a trivial relationship between otherwise extremely dissimilar things and blows it up into a side-by-side comparison.   It's the same silly thing you see on McCain's "celebrity" adverts.   In this case, Paris Hilton is known primarily for her sex tape, her name, her lack of shame, and her overexposure.  Her criminal problems were just icing on the cake and fodder for the gossip-mill.  What's "wrong with her" is not her disregard for the law - her problems are much much deeper than that.  Thus comparing her with a complex issue involving MILLIONS of people is flimsy.  If he weren't trying to use a straw man he wouldn't have selected such an incendiary subject for his analogy.  As I said, he's not stupid.

Anyhow, I'd like to take him seriously, as there are times when he has good points.  However I find that all the good is being drowned in a sea of poor reasoning and flimsy arguments.

Jeffrey.

P.S.  Yes, I lied.  I'm going to shut up about this thread now.  Please respond me to me off-list if you want a further response.

--

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine