The Horrible Analogy Thread

[Kamikaze189]

This thread is dedicated to those who suck at making analogies, and its purpose is to highlight those individuals' failings at making reasonable comparisons. Please post any you happen to spot.

Having followed "Wafergate", I came across so many awful analogies on Pharyngula and other Catholic websites that I realized there were probably enough to fill this thread single-handedly. So I'll just give a couple from another website:

Lydia, speaking, via analogy, about one person, who takes one cracker wrote

I think a good analogy is a situation where some publication is given out for free to be read, and those who dislike what is in the publication take it in armloads and publically burn it so no one else can read it. The free distribution of the publication is understood by all parties to be for the purposes of its being read or at least potentially read, not destroyed in bulk. That is why it was stated that liberal groups who took entire print runs of free conservative student newspapers on college campuses and publically burned them in barrels (this really happened) were stealing the print runs.

Lydia, writing, via analogy, about an easily replaceable food item that is mass produced wrote

Deceptively taking the last photograph of your deceased spouse and desecrating it would hardly count as harmless to most sane people. To you, the photograph may be nothing more than chemicals on a piece of paper. To the person you took it from, it has far more significance which normal people recognize.

[Professor Chaos]

This is an awesome thread, kami. Nicely done.

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?

[R and All]

Lily wrote

Since it is not obvious why these are bad analogies...

Ah, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Hopeless!

R and All wrote

Ah, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Hopeless!

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.

I should also point out that it is mostly student newspapers that get stolen and for the reason Lydia alludes to. Student fees are used to support the publication of student newspapers at most universities and the university usually supports the enterprise with space, equipment, computers, etc. So taxpayer money subsidizes these kinds of publications and, consequently, their theft is a theft from students and universities who have helped pay for them. Free is not very free, after all.

The other analogy is also excellent. It is quite irrelevant that the wafers are mass produced and are easily replaced. Upon consecration they become a sacred object. Her analogy easily conveys how believers feel. It only fails if, in fact, you have nothing that means anything to you. No souvenir of an event that was memorable, no dried flowers from your wedding, no bronzed baby shoes, no letters from someone you loved, no irreplaceable photos, etc. If you really do not cherish anything that has no monetary value but is, nevertheless valuable because it points to something of value, then you will not understand.

That doesn't make the analogy bad; it demonstrates that you are either very inexperienced in life or, else, heartless.

[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.

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.

[Irreligious]

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?

Choobus has liberally sprinkled this forum with some real gems.

[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!

[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]

In order to keep this thread as argument free as possible: no.

[Professor Chaos]

Kamikaze189 wrote

In order to keep this thread as argument free as possible: no.

cough*youcouldrequestaTFTlabel*cough

[Kamikaze189]

Rabble rabble free speech rabble.