Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I agree with you if we're talking about analogies, but not if we're talking about actual historical precedent.


sort by: page size:

Analogies are not meant to be precisely equivalent in every respect. They're just a tool to illustrate a certain point.

That's the problem with analogies, they are analogies.

No. That's not an accurate analogy however.

I disagree, and I'm glad we can do that :)

IMO, analogies are fair game, and a useful tool for simplification. They can also work well for highlighting hypocrisy, when a supposedly universal rule is not being applied as widely as we thought it was.


It's an analogy, not an equivalence.

No, it's not even close to that. Analogies aren't that good of a tool to use here.

Huh? You mind explaining how that applies to my comment, in terms of the things we're actually talking about instead of analogies?

I am aware of that. That's why analogies are usually not very useful.

No, that’s not how analogies work.

No, that has nothing to do with the analogy.

I don't think you understand how analogies work.

Analogies are important to help understand the world and put things in context. Not only that, but analogies like this are commonly used in our legal system to both argue a point and justify a judicial decision. So I disagree that my comment is a derailment at all. X doesn't have to be exactly like Y for a comparison to be drawn, and I see little difference in the two.

Analogies are, almost by definition, "incorrect". They're still very useful.

This analogy is not accurate.

I don't think this analogy holds up.

I meant analogies in the formal sense, not... straw man analogies.

I am generally not a fan of analogies but I think yours is a good one.

I think that's clearly not an apt analogy.

I don't think you understand analogies either. That's not an analogy, that is what happened.
next

Legal | privacy