> This is a really poor analogy. The position of captain of on a warship
Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse.
Making a backdoor point by claiming "poor analogy" is basically noise on noise. It muddles both the original point and fails to make a coherent followup. Defining a different set of criteria for what to compare on, does not change the initial comparison in a meaningful way.
Define an interpretation (which may get clarified) to focus in on an objection, then form a second viewpoint.
What is the specific 'backdoor point' you take issue with? Comparing a thing to a thing that is not that thing is not 'the height of discourse'. The comment made a point, I made a different point. Which is not necessarily the height of but at least qualifies as discourse. I'm not sure what to make of an objection that ends with exhorting me to define an interpretation.
> Comparing a thing to a thing that is not that thing is not 'the height of discourse'.
That isn't what I said. I will re-quote, that which was stated plainly:
>> Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse.
It's usually not worth it to engage with someone who ignores the content, which they are ostensibly criticizing. I will try to answer the main thrust of your post, as a courtesy (you may interpret it as a rehash).
> What is the specific 'backdoor point' you take issue with?
Creating a second interpretation of an analogy, rather than clarifying (or rephrasing) the point being made.
> The comment made a point, I made a different point
This is no different than posting "I disagree." AND "I think this..." but without clarity in why you disagree on the original point (not even sure you understand what the original point of the analogy was supposed to be), because you chose to piggy-back with similar terms by using a completely different analogy and implying that it invalidates an argument that was never articulated. This is disingenuous, at the core.
Trying to show viewpoints in the clearest and most concise way, is the height of discourse.
Making a backdoor point by claiming "poor analogy" is basically noise on noise. It muddles both the original point and fails to make a coherent followup. Defining a different set of criteria for what to compare on, does not change the initial comparison in a meaningful way.
Define an interpretation (which may get clarified) to focus in on an objection, then form a second viewpoint.
reply