The Horrible Analogy Thread

Mog wrote

Don't worry Lily. We'll get to you. I believe you made a bad analogy about piracy a while back?

Piracy? I doubt it. That isn't a subject that is on my intellectual horizon. You would have to find it and show it to me. It doesn't ring a bell.

[Philboid Studge]

Due to the incontinent use of italics, quotation marks, brackets, and boldface in this post, I can't tell whether the bad analogies are Lily's, a "favorite writer" of hers, or some other cumchugger's. In any case: bad.

Philboid Studge wrote

Due to the incontinent use of italics, quotation marks, brackets, and boldface in this post, I can't tell whether the bad analogies are Lily's, a "favorite writer" of hers, or some other cumchugger's. In any case: bad.

Incontinent? That's a bad analogy. The italics and bolding are mine. The rest belongs to a writer whose writing is, by all accounts, sharp and intelligent. He has published a half dozen or more books and at least several hundred more articles than you ever will. Under his own "byline" I should add.

You might like to develop his incontinence. Maybe it will get you out of that palatial estate you and your cats inhabit.

[ghoulslime]

Lily wrote

Since it is not obvious why these are bad analogies, could you define a good one so that we can measure the analogies we come across against the definition?

Whoops! I’ve been mistaken in my choice of threads. I thought this thread had something to do with asshole sex gone wrong. I saw Lily’s name and drew inappropriate conclusions. My apologies for the misunderstanding! My sympathy for any rectal pain Lily may or may not be experiencing!

[Kamikaze189]

Lily wrote

I wonder why? Three states (Maryland, California and Colorado) make the theft of free newspapers a crime because it is the most perfect textbook example possible of how the first amendment can be abridged. Other states handle it at the local level under existing statutes against theft. Free does not mean that anyone can do anything he wants with the product/object taken under false pretenses. (google " theft (free newspaper)" for more information. Much more than you have time to read this month or next. "Lydia" did not describe very clearly the reason such theft is a crime but she is correct. It is a crime.

Whether or not taking free newspapers by the armload is theft, Cook only took one cracker. He didn't prevent anyone else from getting a wafer either. Therefore the analogy is, at the very least, blown out of proportion.

The other analogy is also excellent. It is quite irrelevant that the wafers are mass produced and are easily replaced.

If you have an easily replaceable and mass produced photograph it's quite doubtful that you'd get too bent out of shape when something happens to one copy. Well, unless you have problems.

[Irreligious]

Lily thinks Lydia's analogy is excellent, and I agree with you, Kamikaze, that it is whacked.

I don't know that there is even anything analogous to "crackergate" in the secular world. Anyway, no judge could reasonably find that a single, mass produced copy of a free newspaper had any inherent value requiring that, once given, it must be read by the receiver, as intended by the giver, or else it constitutes theft.

If the receiver of a single copy of a mass produced, free newspaper should choose to take it home and store it in a plastic baggie for two decades, burn it or wipe his or her ass with it, that still wouldn't prevent anyone else who had also availed himself or herself to a free copy of said newspaper from reading the entire edition, if they wished to. Nor was the "Holy Communion" ritual in any way prevented from proceeding when young Webster Cook walked out of that university chapel with the one "blessed" cracker he tried to stash. If hawk eyes had not been upon him in that instance, no one would have been the wiser, and everyone else in the church who wanted to partake of the ritual was still free to do so.

As I said in another thread, Cook offended sensibilities (which is serious enough considering how important they are to folk, no matter how inane others may find them). However, Cook did not "steal" anything in the secular sense of the term. That is, for all "practical" purposes.

Under the law, it should matter little what importance the giver attaches to a "gift" that is freely given, be it a copy of a complimentary and highly regarded newspaper or a freely given but highly revered communion wafer. Perhaps, more importance ought to be placed on the intent of the receiver who did not use the "gift" as intended by the giver, if that can be established from the evidence.

Did Cook intend to provoke the folks in that church into a near bloodthirsty rage when he took the "host" and tried to secretly stash it without eating it? From the information available, it doesn't seem like that was his intent.

We can reasonably surmise that the hypothetical guy who took a free copy of the "Lilliputian Weekly" and blew his nose with it in front of the editor and publisher intended to pique her ire. But what of the guy who politely took a copy, and stuffed it under his arm to take home for use as a lining for his bird's cage, and his rouse was later found out by two intrepid reporters from the "Lilliputian Weekly?"

That's a better analogy, I think.

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

Since it is not obvious why these are bad analogies, could you define a good one so that we can measure the analogies we come across against the definition?

You asking us for good analogies is like Lot asking his wife to pass the salt.

Choobus wrote

You asking us for good analogies is like Lot asking his wife to pass the salt.

As analogies go, that blows.

Kamikaze189 wrote

...
If you have an easily replaceable and mass produced photograph it's quite doubtful that you'd get too bent out of shape when something happens to one copy. Well, unless you have problems.

This is deliberate refusal to understand and it is simply inexcusable. I can only conclude that if you had nothing better to do you would gladly join your buddies on a mission to knock over headstones at your local Jewish cemetary. Nor would you see a problem with joining in a KKK cross-burning. Since headstones can be put upright again and lawns can be reseeded, what on earth is the problem? What on earth is the difference?

We are not talking about objects. We are talking about the feelings that are wounded when a cherished object is vandalized/destroyed/desecrated. You choose the word. The object isn't the issue; the feelings that have been wounded and the subsequent fury that this stupid act has aroused are.

[Mog]

I think you just offended Jews by claiming that desecrating a Jewish cemetery is the equivalent to making out with a common cracker, Lily. I guess we just can't stop you from making horrible analogies, can we?

oh wait, I know what this whole cracker business is equivalent to! Its equivalent to denying the Holy Ghost!

(And sorry if I can't be bothered to tell you where that thread is where you made that other bad analogy, but I think it had to do with the Expelled movie.)

Mog wrote

I think you just offended Jews by claiming that desecrating a Jewish cemetery is the equivalent to making out with a common cracker, Lily.

I doubt it. Jews know something about desecration and mobs.

(And sorry if I can't be bothered to tell you where that thread is where you made that other bad analogy, but I think it had to do with the Expelled movie.)

Well, I will review that thread. That may be the one that the question of downloading music illegally, etc was discussed, in which case I likely did use the word piracy. But, frankly, without some context, "piracy" conjures up the high seas and, occasionally, Johnny Depp in my mind.

[Irreligious]

Wow, Lily. Just wow.

Alright aready. I believe you. From your point of view (and, presumably, from that of many other Roman Catholics-- though, not too many, I hope) Webster Cook's actions were nearly tantamount to crucifying Jesus all over again. I get it!

Geez!

You guys are fucking scary. Chile, next I see a Catholic church, I'm walking across the street just avoid being near the likes of you. Sorry, but that's how I honestly feel, and I should be just as entitled to my sensibilities.

So I will acknowledge the reality of your sensibilities on this, but in no way do I feel obligated to respect them as sane and or remotely justifiable.

The kid was wrong to try to have walked out of that church with that wafer, given the mentality of the folks who offered him this alleged "gift." In fact, I'd say he was wrong to have walked inside the building in the first place.

*Webster, man, do your penance and stay the fuck out of their churches.*

And, please, Pope Joey, put up a sign over your hallowed buildings: "Enter at your own risk. We're gunning for you to fuck up. Just try us and experience the hounds of hell at your heels."

A little lengthy, but I think that would be honest, too.

[Kamikaze189]

Lily wrote

This is deliberate refusal to understand and it is simply inexcusable. I can only conclude that if you had nothing better to do you would gladly join your buddies on a mission to knock over headstones at your local Jewish cemetary. Nor would you see a problem with joining in a KKK cross-burning. Since headstones can be put upright again and lawns can be reseeded, what on earth is the problem? What on earth is the difference?

(Bolding mine)

Thank you, Lily. This is exactly what this thread is about.

(First, knocking over headstones is not something the Jews already do in their cemetaries -- not in the same way crackers are handed out at communion as gifts. Rabbis don't invite people to take whacks at tombstones as presents, as far as I know. You aren't given someone elses stone to do with as you please.)

We are not talking about objects. We are talking about the feelings that are wounded when a cherished object is vandalized/destroyed/desecrated.

I don't care if someone mistakes a cracker for a two-thousand year old dead guy. And, once they start making death threats, I do hope someone desecrates their holy food to make a point of it.

[Choobus]

I assume that Lily et al would consider it to be an equally egregious offense if one were to infiltrate a Nambla meeting and try to make off with one of their special ceremonial leaflets that describes the joys of man boy love, but that is not supposed to leave the building, for a number of reasons. After all, these guys are not breaking the law, and they hold their man boy love doctrines very dearly and so would be quite offended if someone were to tread on their sensibilities in such a brutish manner.

Or suppose there was a group of law abiding racists who had a special club called Good times a lynchin' and at their meetings they would take apart an oreo, destroy the dark sections and liberate the good honest whiteness. Suppose someone tried to abscond with an intact oreo and was caught. Would the members of "good times" be as justified in their vexation as the catholics? According to Lily it seems the answer has to be yes.

[Professor Chaos]

Someone who has conversed with Lily for two years and is still surprised at her insanity and stupidity is like ______________________________________ .