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?

[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.

[Professor Chaos]

[R and All]

Lily wrote

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

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

Hopeless!

[Professor Chaos]

So who wants to point out to our resident lunatic that the first analogy is horrible because:

1.) The cracker-thief did not "take it in armloads." He took one.
2.) The cracker-thief did not "publically burn it so no one else can read it." Everyone else got their magic crackers. He didn't create a public spectacle, the cult did.
3.) The crackers are not distributed to everyone for the purpose of being eaten or potentially being eaten. They are given only to the cult members.
4.) Taxpayer money is not being mentioned as funding the distribution of the free publication.

I could go on, but she has me 'on ignore.'

[Professor Chaos]

Hopeless indeed.

[Professor Chaos]

Did anyone else notice how hilarious it is that some cuntservative assbag is claiming that liberals were "stealing" a free publication?

[nkb]

I dig this thread. Great idea, Kamikaze.

Here is a recent one from one of our new fake agnostic, w_1975.

w_1975 wrote

So if the Mona Lisa fell out of the South American sky and was discovered by one of the indian tribes that have no contact with civilization, how many of them would correctly conclude the the creator was Leonardo Da Vinci, how many would conclude it had no creator at all, and if they all made incorrect conclusions would that mean Leonardo Da Vinci did not paint it ?

The analogy itself is actually ok, but it proves the opposite point than he is trying to make.

If humans are the Indians in this analogy, then the chances of even a single one of us correctly identifying the correct creator of the painting are nil. Hence, we can safely ignore any human attempt at an explanation of a super-duper deity that created the universe.

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.

[Mog]

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

[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.