Tories ask a last minute meeting with NDP

[bloodyminded]

They are bad arguments. They show an inability to logically elaborate your argument from point A to point B and instead reduce/simplify it through comparison to a largely unrelated concept. It is, however, highly successful against people who cannot detect flawed reasoning.

You simply keep repeating the same "argument," but remain unable to expand on it. You're making bland declarations which carry no expansive argument or evidence to support your claim.

Further, your admonition here is not about analogy, but about "Flawed" or "bad" analogy.

But Moonbox, every form of argument, without exception, can be used in a flawed or bad manner.

If you could pinpoint the argument I was trying to make here you might have a point. If you read through the thread however, absolutely nothing of consequence was mentioned (OP included). I wasn't making any argument. I never said that analogy was evil and that you should never use it. I said it's weak argument that's easy to disassemble.

Then stop using it!

I'm sorry. What's really sad is that you took my disdain for weakly formed arguments and concluded from it that any form of metaphor or comparison in regular discussion (or mocking banter) was taboo. That's the same sort of lame duck logic that leads to bad analogies!

Whew, these are some fascinatingly selective and self-serving mental acrobatics.

So...analogy is bad when it's used seriously, but good when it's used mockingly.

Ok...but why? You don't say--despite my repeated attempts to find out. You revert--again--to the "bad argument" theory, which you say you "disdain," even as you refuse to offer any real argument.

At any rate, the odd "fine in mockery" formulation isn't your only defense.

Evidently, the use of Metaphor (your actual enemy here) exposes an "inability to logically elaborate [my] argument from point A to point B and instead reduce/simplify it through comparison to a largely unrelated concept."

Never mind that analogous metaphor is intrinsic to language--as in, oh, for example, your use of "point A to point B," a metaphorical construct.

You also say that my "lame duck logic" leads to "bad analogies." Well, that's moving the goalposts, isn't it? (Or is "moving the goalposts" too illogical a formulation for this argument?

And is it better or worse than "lame duck"?)

Because--like I said--there are analogies, and there are bad analogies. I agree that bad analogies are, well, bad. But your issue wasn't with "bad" analogies...it was with analogies, period.

By the way: "travelling clown" to describe Khaddafi would constitute, by your simultaneously exacting and vague standards, a bad metaphor: "travelling" is either inaccurate, or, if you really meant it, is too esoteric to be understood by any reader not "in" on your perfectly particular and personal joke on the matter. Why is he "travelling"?

You also argue that "metaphor" and "comparison" are fine and dandy for "regular discussion"...but not analogy, apparently.

Well, analogy is "metaphor and comparison," by definition.

Now:

While you cannot explain why analogy is bad, I can explain why it's perfectly fine, and is used by virtually everybody, in every field of discussion, from politics to science...yes, even science!

Analogy is a central component of all argumentation--all the better reason to avoid "bad" analogy, but also indicative of the centrality of the form itself.

You can't avoid it, Moonbox, is my point. You see? You can't avoid it. No one can.

That's why you've tried to devise brand new rules of your own: it's okay in mockery (for some reason...unstated); but it's also ok in "regular discussion," provided the Target and Source of analogical discussion remain vague.

?????????

Moonbox, there must be writers--political, philosophical--whom you admire.

Find me one--one!--who not only claims to eschew analogy, but also never uses it.

Good luck with that!

No, what your argument actually declares is the following:

Any use of metaphor, up to and including analogical devices, is perfectly fine.

Until one uses them negatively to portray interests whom Moonbox admires...say, the gangsters who run American foreign policy.

If I had used an analogy of foreign policy folk to pedophiles...well, that would constitute a bad analogy, I think. At least, I can't immediately see how it would analogously apply.

But "gangsters"? Not an issue. It's perfectly fine.

Now, the point at which "gangsters" becomes a bad analogy is when a Canadian patriot will claim gangsterism for the United States...and simultaneously claim or imply that Canadian policy is built entirely on justice or altruism or benign motives. Then the analogy is damaged through its selectivity, when in fact it must point logically only to the general.

In other words, an analogy can be both workable in and of itself, but unfair when used in a partisan manner, implying that other analogous Targets or Sources are not applicable, even when they are.

But I wasn't doing that; I wasn't, for example, implying a pristine foreign policy apparatus for America's official enemies. So it wasn't a bad analogy.

Edited March 23, 2011 by bloodyminded

[madmax]

Exactly right, although Layton's not taking the crumbs Harper offered him surprised more than just me, it took a lot of CBC and CTV pundit types by surprise too...

The Pundits job was to make something that was nothing, entertaining.

Especially since a lot of prominent NDPers were "Leaning" in the opposite direction from what Layton did in post budget reading interviews...

HUH? I do have quite a few New Democrat Pundits and Friends and I never heard from one that there was going to be any kind of support for the budget and that their base was emphatic that Layton choose "leave it" in a "take it or leave it" proposition.

That's why I'm saying that Layton will be having some very interesting caucus meetings coming up, and then there's still the amendments portion of the budget before Friday when the shit ostensibly will hit the fan via a Liberal non confidence motion on the "ethics" and corruption of the Harper Regime and not the Harper Budget itself...

All amendments will go nowhere. Its just moving deck chairs around on the titanic. The train has left the station, its just a matter of Corruption of Budget and who gets the throw the switch on the electric chair.

Clearly there was alot of Liberal Propoganda before the budget and the Conservatives did an excellent job of leaking itsy bits of the budget to frame their election campaign.

Still a couple more days of manipulation coming ... Its almost like a game of survivor. Outwit, outplay, outlast. Everyone knows the end is nigh.

[Moonbox]

No, what your argument actually declares is the following:

Any use of metaphor, up to and including analogical devices, is perfectly fine.

Until one uses them negatively to portray interests whom Moonbox admires...say, the gangsters who run American foreign policy.

I'm sorry bloodyminded, but you're just digging deeper and deeper into semantics. I'll start by saying analogy isn't taboo in my mind or anyone's. We all use it. Sometimes they can be very apt at clarifying confusion, particularly in the legal system (precedence). I'm sure you'll consider that a massive victory for justice by getting me to admit that, but again you'd just be playing with semantics. I'll let you feel you've proven something.

On the other hand, I will maintain that analogy is, the vast majority of the time (bolded so you don't get confused) abused and poorly formed in persuasive arguments and can easily be picked apart to show that the writer/speaker has nothing more intelligent to say.

I still think it's really funny that you chose to bring this up on this thread. You just couldn't wait!@

You also argue that "metaphor" and "comparison" are fine and dandy for "regular discussion"...but not analogy, apparently.

Well, analogy is "metaphor and comparison," by definition

First of all, you've decided that simple use of metaphor in every day speech is the same thing as analogy in persuasive arguments. There's a pretty big difference, for example, between me saying, "She's a fox" and me trying to argue selective design by comparing the world and its ecosystems to a carefully crafted machine. Read a few things by David Hume and maybe you'll appreciate what I'm talking about. In the first example I'm using a clichéd metaphor to explain that I find a woman attractive (tbh I don't even understand the metaphor but that doesn't matter). There's nothing to argue there. It's just a metaphor. On the other hand, assuming I was a religious nut, and I tried to assert that the world was designed by an intelligent being because all of its inhabitants and ecosystems functioned just like a well-oiled machine, I'd be presenting an analogy. Hopefully you can tell the difference now because thus far you seem to really struggle with it. Let's move on from there now shall we?

But "gangsters"? Not an issue. It's perfectly fine.

Now, the point at which "gangsters" becomes a bad analogy is when a Canadian patriot will claim gangsterism for the United States...and simultaneously claim or imply that Canadian policy is built entirely on justice or altruism or benign motives. Then the analogy is damaged through its selectivity, when in fact it must point logically only to the general.

No. An analogy falls apart way before you bring up selectivity and hypocrisy. It's interesting that you bring up selectivity when discussing bad use of analogy, because that's usually where they fall apart. Your gangster analogy that you defend, for example, holds no water because not only have you not supported the analogy with a rational argument, but it's far easier to think of differences between them than similarities. Other than your opinion that they're bad people and you find it helpful to your argument to project the image of Al Capone and Tommy Guns on western governments, how is the analogy in any way apt?

If you seriously want to persuade anyone with your analogy and if you're going to back it up, you have have some reasoning behind it and some pretty strong links between whatever concepts you're comparing.

In other words, an analogy can be both workable in and of itself, but unfair when used in a partisan manner, implying that other analogous Targets or Sources are not applicable, even when they are.

I can compare trying to get you to understand the difference between simple metaphor and inductive analogy is like teaching a monkey to write. They're both very difficult and since they share that characteristic my analogy is a valid argument. That's what you're saying.

But I wasn't doing that; I wasn't, for example, implying a pristine foreign policy apparatus for America's official enemies. So it wasn't a bad analogy.

You're saying that your analogy was valid because your argument wasn't hypocritical??? It's no wonder you're struggling to connect the dots on this if you think that. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Moonbox

[bloodyminded]

I'm sorry bloodyminded, but you're just digging deeper and deeper into semantics.

....so you say, before deciding that you agree with me on the broad point with which you intially took issue:

I'll start by saying analogy isn't taboo in my mind or anyone's. We all use it. Sometimes they can be very apt at clarifying confusion, particularly in the legal system (precedence). I'm sure you'll consider that a massive victory for justice by getting me to admit that, but again you'd just be playing with semantics. I'll let you feel you've proven something.

I recognize that you love the word "semantics"--hence your promiscuous use of a word you do not comprehend. In fact, you are now openly conceding a point which you specifically contested; offer a pre-emptive strike against my predicted "victory' by bizarrely declaring such a "victory" to be "semantics"; but in fact you have conceded that you were mistaken.

For the record, I don't sit shivering at the keyboard awaiting semantic "wins" on an anonymous debate forum. That's a fool's game, and a waste of my time. If I did, I would no doubt adopt the "can't lose" style of mocking every point ever made by an opponent, Bush_Cheney2004-style.

On the other hand, I will maintain that analogy is, the vast majority of the time (bolded so you don't get confused) abused and poorly formed in persuasive arguments and can easily be picked apart to show that the writer/speaker has nothing more intelligent to say.

Why do you need to bold it so that I "don't get confused"? It's not as if this was your stated point all along, to which I stubbornly remained immune.

I still think it's really funny that you chose to bring this up on this thread. You just couldn't wait!

??

For what?

First of all, you've decided that simple use of metaphor in every day speech is the same thing as analogy in persuasive arguments.

Not at all. I said analogy is a metaphorical construct, not that there could be no distinction between varied uses of metaphor.

And we weren't referring to "every day speech," but precisely to persuasive argument and the varied rhetorical styles used therein. I offered several that you have used, including "lame duck argument" and "travelling clown."

Neither of which, evidently, require "support" through "rational argument."

You remain unwilling to declare such uses of metaphor unreasonable (declaring a false equivalency between them and the use of "she's a fox," which is completely irrelevant, as you surely know).

I still believe it was the unflattering quality of the analogy to American foreign policy which set you off, not the proper or improper use of rhetorical devices...since you incontestably couldn't care less about these matters in any other way, not even in your own usage.

There's a pretty big difference, for example, between me saying, "She's a fox" and me trying to argue selective design by comparing the world and its ecosystems to a carefully crafted machine. Read a few things by David Hume and maybe you'll appreciate what I'm talking about. In the first example I'm using a clichéd metaphor to explain that I find a woman attractive (tbh I don't even understand the metaphor but that doesn't matter). There's nothing to argue there. It's just a metaphor. On the other hand, assuming I was a religious nut, and I tried to assert that the world was designed by an intelligent being because all of its inhabitants and ecosystems functioned just like a well-oiled machine, I'd be presenting an analogy. Hopefully you can tell the difference now because thus far you seem to really struggle with it.

Of course I don't struggle with it, though the way you resort to smug condescension when you get cornered is mildly irritating. I agree with your distinctions here completely.

But you weren't randomly referring to some hot babe; you were making pointed metaphorical criticisms.

Of official enemies, and fellow posters, the only time your exacting standards are allowed to be loosened. (On this point, this allowance, you refuse to elaborate.)

And I wasn't making an analogy predicated on my particular, contested beliefs (as your analogous remark implies); rather, I was using the "realpolitik" convention (which is scarcely controversial)--and comparing that to gangsterism.

In the first example I'm using a clichéd metaphor to explain that I find a woman attractive (tbh I don't even understand the metaphor but that doesn't matter). There's nothing to argue there. It's just a metaphor. On the other hand, assuming I was a religious nut, and I tried to assert that the world was designed by an intelligent being because all of its inhabitants and ecosystems functioned just like a well-oiled machine, I'd be presenting an analogy. Hopefully you can tell the difference now because thus far you seem to really struggle with it.

Holy cow. I don't believe you've thought things through, here.

Either you are giving an example of a bad analogy (in which case you're preaching to the choir anyway); or you're restating your original assertion, that analogy is bad, as if the terrible analogy you cite is indicative generally; or...most fascinatingly--you are implying some connection between my analogy and this one....in other words, offering an implied analogy in regards to my analogy. (ie "bloodyminded's analogy is just like...well, it's like this analogy...allow me to analogize bloodyminded's analogy with another analogy!").

!!!

Which proves my point, that they're built in, and you can't escape them.

No. An analogy falls apart way before you bring up selectivity and hypocrisy.

Oh, we're back to this now, are we?

Don't you mean that it can fall apart?

It's interesting that you bring up selectivity when discussing bad use of analogy, because that's usually where they fall apart.

My exact point was correct..."because" my exact point was correct? Do you understand tautology? Or is your need to be patronizing getting the better of your logic?

Your gangster analogy that you defend, for example, holds no water because not only have you not supported the analogy with a rational argument

My analogy holds no water because I didn't append a parsing explanation of why I used it?

But ok, to humour you: The US in Iraq (to stick with the analogy under question here) acted as gangsters because the war was for the sake of enlarging geostrategic influence, enlarging investment and other financial opportunities, and was also likely meant as a demonstration war of America's military power.

That is not unusual behaviour for a country; it also happens to be quite profoundly analogous to the behaviour of gangsters.

I note you only object to half the analogy; Saddam's explicit comparison to the (weaker) gangster does not seem to arouse the same, sudden interest in rhetorical device, as you misundertand it.

,

but it's far easier to think of differences between them than similarities. Other than your opinion that they're bad people and you find it helpful to your argument to project the image of Al Capone and Tommy Guns on western governments, how is the analogy in any way apt?

Aside from your error here (I do not think of American policymakers as "bad people," and reject all analyses that refuse to take institutional factors into account), I explained the analogy in brief, above.

I hadn't thought it necessary, because I assumed you viewed the world in the manner of realpolitik, or close to it.

If, however, you view the Western nations, led by the U.S., as inherently benign entities flitting about an ungrateful Earth trying to do good for noble purposes....well, I can't help that. Such a view is cribbed from epic poems, and has little basis in reality.

In fact, it's a pretty wild conspracy theory, assuming as it does that the richest and most powerful figures are intensely controversial and disliked largely because the world itself is evil or ignorant, relative to the wise and benevolent hegemons.

Of course a "gangster" analogy is going to appear unrealistic at that point...although Khaddafi remains a "travelling clown."

I can compare trying to get you to understand the difference between simple metaphor and inductive analogy is like teaching a monkey to write. They're both very difficult and since they share that characteristic my analogy is a valid argument. That's what you're saying.

No, that's what you're saying; because your assertion all along (unchanged, we now see) is that "mockery," including of other posters, magically makes analogy reasonable.

For...some reason, unstated.

You're saying that your analogy was valid because your argument wasn't hypocritical??? It's no wonder you're struggling to connect the dots on this if you think that. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

I offered my reasoning on this, which was quite sound.

You didn't even read it. So why respond at all?

Hell, if you hadn't been so eager in the first place to offer a criticism which you don't even believe--that "analogy is a bad argument," period--we wouldn't be having the "semantics" disagreement we're having now, wholly initiated by yourself even as you decry such vulgarities. Rather, you would have said "that's a bad analogy, Bloodyminded"; to which I either might have responded, "whatever!", or spelled out my explanation. And you would have been kept from tying yourself up into contradictory knots.

Edited March 29, 2011 by bloodyminded