Logical Analogies in Argumentation

Analogy is actually a pretty handy philosophical tool when you're building an argument.
It’s basically a type of indirect reasoning where you start with one specific case and draw a conclusion about another specific case based on their similarities. If two things share certain traits, we tend to assume they might share others too...

Let's look at an example of how an analogy can turn into an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Ayn Rand is just some guru for Wall Street sharks, financial hustlers, and that whole business underworld—basically the mentor to wealthy socialites looking for cosmetic upgrades.

Which is analogous to this:

Jesus Christ is a guru for corrupt priests and religious fanatics who trick naive people out of their money and abuse children.

So, an analogy is just comparing similar traits. In this case, using symbols from one world (Christianity) to try and explain a phenomenon in another world (secular society) in a way that feels more vivid or persuasive.

druid said:That's a bad analogy because Jesus never actually wrote any books, and we aren't even entirely sure if he existed as a historical figure: even if he did (which is highly likely), we know almost nothing about him as a person.

Following that logic, an analogy shouldn't rely on fiction to make its point. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave would be considered flawed because it isn't based on actual people or a real cave, and there's no physical evidence for either.

By that same measure, no analogy is ever truly "good" because it can't transfer every single property from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never perfectly identical to the thing it’s being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes repetitive.
So, really, an analogy shouldn't be used as a primary tool for making an argument just because it's an analogy.

Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

No.

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

Some... Yes.

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

mistyscout2 said:Wikipedia * weekend philosophy meets "An Introduction to Analytical Philosophy as a Tool for Debates Like Science vs. Religion" meets pulling skin back.
______________________________________
I mean, sure, using the English version of Wikipedia is a solid way to look up facts, but if we’re talking about it being a place to actually learn how to think critically? Come on. It’s just not built for that. And honestly, those debate clubs people talk about feel a lot like one of those American summer debate camps—you know, where kids go to keep their brains moving over the break while hanging out and making friends at the same time. 😁

It’s a tempting way to look at things, isn't it? We have this natural tendency to assume that if two things share a handful of obvious traits, they probably share the rest of their DNA too. It feels intuitive, almost like a mental shortcut we use to make sense of a messy world, but I’ve always found myself leaning toward caution there. Just because two objects look alike on the surface doesn't mean they'll behave the same way once you actually start digging into them. It's one of those little logical traps that sounds perfectly reasonable until you realize how often it leads us astray.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Like, always?

Let’s take this example to illustrate how an ad hominem fallacy actually works in practice.

Look, my comments weren't even really intended to be an ad hominem attack; it was more just me venting a little bit of my own frustration. Honestly, I feel like you're kind of building a straw man here...😍Look, you’re kind of implying that I was aiming for some sort of scientific rigor here, but that really wasn't my intention at all. I was being subjective, which should be pretty obvious if you just look at the context of what I wrote. I’m certainly not pretending to be Ayn Rand and claiming to be the founder of "Objectivism" or anything of the sort. 😁.

Look, I didn't actually commit some logical fallacy; I was just being a human being and voicing my actual opinion on Ayn Rand. Honestly, I even went as far as saying I could live with it being an "ad hominem" attack, so I really don't see why we need to keep dragging this out since we already reached an understanding on that point. Though, if I'm being totally honest with myself, calling it that might be a bit of an overstatement anyway—I wasn't really trying to pull an ad hominem move, I was just trying to insult Ayn Rand directly. Dammit, I guess I failed at that too...

If we’re following this logic to its natural conclusion, then analogies aren't allowed to touch fiction when they're trying to describe reality. By that standard, even the Platonic Allegory of the Cave falls apart—it’s technically flawed because it isn't based on actual people or an actual cave, and there's obviously no empirical evidence to prove either one exists.

Look, that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s just not where my head is at. The whole issue is that we're getting way too caught up in splitting hairs over the tiny details. When you focus entirely on nitpicking those little things, you end up losing sight of the bigger picture altogether.

Did Ayn Rand champion absolute individualism and selfishness? You bet she did.
Do you think the big shots—the corporate types, the bankers, the high-level entrepreneurs—actually operate with that kind of mindset? Honestly, yeah, I really do.

So, there’s actually this whole trail of correspondence between Ayn Rand and some of her followers—people who, if you think about it, were quite prominent in their own right. It wasn't even that long ago that she passed away, either.

Let's move on to the next thing.

Did Jesus ever actually call for burning women, intellectuals, or anyone with a curious mind? Did he preach that pedophilia was something to be embraced? Did he advocate for crusades? For those looking for a quick headline: absolutely not.

When you look at the historical behavior of inquisitors, crusaders, and much of the clergy, you have to ask yourself if their lifestyle actually aligns with Jesuan’s teachings—and honestly, it just doesn't.
There’s really no way to bridge the gap between how they actually lived and what Jesus was teaching. Whether you view him as a historical figure or not doesn't even matter at this point; no matter how you slice it, their actions just didn't align with what you'd call Jesuan doctrine.
Did any of them actually know Jesus personally, or did he ever truly impact anyone among them on an individual level? Not a single soul.

Honestly, the whole thing is just so weirdly straightforward that I can't quite wrap my head around why we’re even bothering to stress ourselves out with all those fancy Latin terms. It feels like we're trying too hard to label logical fallacies in informal reasoning—stuff you'd typically breeze through during your freshman year of a philosophy major or maybe just some high school debate club after school.

Following that logic, no analogy is ever truly perfect because you can't possibly transfer every single attribute from one subject to another. In other words, it’s never an identical match to the thing it's being compared to.
At that point, it stops being an analogy and just becomes a repetition of the same thing.
So, an analogy shouldn't be used as a tool for building arguments simply because it is an analogy.

Man, some people really do love having everything neatly laid out in strict rules without actually looking at what lies beneath them. I should probably double-check if "anal" and "analytical" share the same root—it feels like they might be related in this context...
I honestly have no clue how you landed on the idea that an analogy "can't be used" as a tool for anything, but alright. Plus, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it "not being allowed"—who exactly is the arbiter deciding those rules?
Also, an analogy doesn't argue anything on its own, obviously; analogies are really just helpful narratives that use examples to present things in a way that makes them easier for us to grasp, depending on how clever and precise they happen to be.

That whole analogy involving Jesus and predatory priests or the Inquisition is just so overplayed that it actually makes me feel awkward when I see it; it's just such a tired trope. It’s like watching a terrible singer on TV where you feel second-hand embarrassment for them—you want to look away because you're feeling their cringe, even if you don't want to. It's the same with all those exhausted arguments about Hitler or the Third Reich and stuff like that... I think I might have just stumbled upon a sort of meta-Godwin's Law or something... 😁

Gosh, it's embarrassing that I even have to point out how cliché this is. Now I'm starting to feel a bit cliché myself just talking about it... 😢 🤣

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Nope.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

No.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

That's possible. So, we aren't really understanding each other. I guess we can at least agree on that part.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Not really.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Yeah.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

True.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

🤷

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around how some people manage to navigate their daily lives without even a basic grasp of what they actually own versus what they just owe. It’s one of those things that sounds simple on paper, but once you start digging into the actual math of it all, things get messy pretty fast. I was looking over my own numbers the other day—just trying to get a handle on where everything stands—and it hit me how much mental energy we spend just avoiding the reality of our bank balances. It’s kind of funny, in a self-deprecating sort of way, how we can be so smart in our careers but then completely lose the plot when it comes to managing our own cash flow. I guess I'm just one of those people who needs to sit down with a coffee and a spreadsheet once a month just to feel like I'm not drifting aimlessly through my finances. kaže:
I guess I’m just being arbitrary here... maybe it isn't the right way to go about things, but honestly, I was just being a human being and speaking my mind.

Yeah, I'm right there with you on that one.

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around how we even got to this point, but here we are. It feels like every time I turn around, there’s some new complication or some unexpected hurdle popping up just when I thought things were finally settling down. I've always been the type to try and smooth things over quietly, maybe being a little too laid back for my own good sometimes, but lately, it feels like the effort required just to maintain a sense of normalcy is getting higher by the day. I’m definitely feeling that bit of exhaustion that comes from trying to stay ahead of the curve when the curve keeps shifting under your feet. Still, I suppose that's just life, isn't it? Just one thing after another, and you just have to find your footing again. kaže:
I mean, honestly, the whole argument just kind of falls apart once you realize how much it's been overused. It’s one of those points that loses all its teeth because people have beaten it into the ground so many times that it doesn't even carry any weight anymore. It’s just worn thin at this point.

Not necessarily. A cliché doesn't lose its truth just because it becomes a cliché. It’s more that people tend to misuse them so frequently that they lose their impact. They start out as these powerful, genuine, and deeply true insights, but then they get tossed around left and right—sometimes thoughtfully, but more often just poorly—until they eventually wear thin and become those tired old tropes we all recognize.

I was just sitting here thinking about how much effort we put into trying to make sense of everything, and honestly, sometimes it feels like we're just spinning our wheels in the sand. You know that feeling when you've been staring at a problem for way too long and suddenly even the simplest thing starts looking completely foreign? It’s a bit humbling, if I’m being honest with myself. I tend to get a little lost in the weeds sometimes, overthinking the small stuff while the big picture just drifts by, but I suppose that's just how my brain is wired. I guess I'm just rambling now, but I figured it was worth mentioning. kaže:
I have to agree there... I’ve always felt that once an argument starts feeling worn out and repetitive, it just loses its punch. It’s hard to take something seriously when you feel like you've heard the exact same talking points a thousand times before.
Look, I’ll admit I went with that whole "the joke is on you" line, but honestly, I only did it because you hit me with such a tired, cliché argument first. I figured if I just threw your own logic right back at you, you'd finally see just how uninspired and predictable that reasoning actually is.

Yeah.

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

No, let me clear that up. What I’m saying is that, personally, "A" just isn't my cup of tea. If there was any confusion earlier, let me rephrase it this way: I’m not claiming that Ayn Rand’s literature and philosophy are objectively, measurably garbage—I have no idea how one would even go about quantifying whether art or thought is "bad" in an objective sense, nor do I know if such a metric could ever be reliable. All I’m doing is speaking strictly for myself. I’m just saying that, for me, it's simply not good. 🙂

electricscout23 said:(The premise) I'm quoting Wikipedia
(The conclusion) So everything I say is worthless...

So your disdain counts as an actual argument...

You're accusing me of accusing you of...

That's the problem with philosophy... or rather, that *is* philosophy... hair-splitting.

No.

Some... Yes.

Yeah... there is... You could even say she had her own cult...

Neither did Ayn Rand's followers live by her principles...
Nor did Ayn Rand herself live by her own principles...

I am the arbiter... Maybe it isn't right... I was just being a person and expressing my opinion...

Basically, an argument loses its edge once it becomes a cliché......
True... I feel the same way. Once an argument gets worn out, it just carries less weight.....
But the reason I went with that tired "joke is on you" angle was because you used one first...... so I just mirrored your own logic back at you to show you how exhausted your point actually sounds.....

(Premise) I don't personally like A
(Conclusion) Therefore, A is garbage

That’s actually a pretty good analogy..... and it’s exactly what I’m feeling toward you right now......
You think I'm the one making a fool of myself, but you don't realize that I'm not the one embarrassing myself here. You're the one embarrassing yourself by thinking that I am.....

Honestly, I don't think you're embarrassing yourself at all. It just feels like we're speaking two completely different languages here.

mistyscout2 said:Nope.

No.

That's possible. So, we aren't really understanding each other. I guess we can at least agree on that part.

Not really.

Yeah.

True.

🤷

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around how some people manage to navigate their daily lives without even a basic grasp of what they actually own versus what they just owe. It’s one of those things that sounds simple on paper, but once you start digging into the actual math of it all, things get messy pretty fast. I was looking over my own numbers the other day—just trying to get a handle on where everything stands—and it hit me how much mental energy we spend just avoiding the reality of our bank balances. It’s kind of funny, in a self-deprecating sort of way, how we can be so smart in our careers but then completely lose the plot when it comes to managing our own cash flow. I guess I'm just one of those people who needs to sit down with a coffee and a spreadsheet once a month just to feel like I'm not drifting aimlessly through my finances. kaže:
I guess I’m just being arbitrary here... maybe it isn't the right way to go about things, but honestly, I was just being a human being and speaking my mind.

Yeah, I'm right there with you on that one.

I honestly can't quite wrap my head around how we even got to this point, but here we are. It feels like every time I turn around, there’s some new complication or some unexpected hurdle popping up just when I thought things were finally settling down. I've always been the type to try and smooth things over quietly, maybe being a little too laid back for my own good sometimes, but lately, it feels like the effort required just to maintain a sense of normalcy is getting higher by the day. I’m definitely feeling that bit of exhaustion that comes from trying to stay ahead of the curve when the curve keeps shifting under your feet. Still, I suppose that's just life, isn't it? Just one thing after another, and you just have to find your footing again. kaže:
I mean, honestly, the whole argument just kind of falls apart once you realize how much it's been overused. It’s one of those points that loses all its teeth because people have beaten it into the ground so many times that it doesn't even carry any weight anymore. It’s just worn thin at this point.

Not necessarily. A cliché doesn't lose its truth just because it becomes a cliché. It’s more that people tend to misuse them so frequently that they lose their impact. They start out as these powerful, genuine, and deeply true insights, but then they get tossed around left and right—sometimes thoughtfully, but more often just poorly—until they eventually wear thin and become those tired old tropes we all recognize.

I was just sitting here thinking about how much effort we put into trying to make sense of everything, and honestly, sometimes it feels like we're just spinning our wheels in the sand. You know that feeling when you've been staring at a problem for way too long and suddenly even the simplest thing starts looking completely foreign? It’s a bit humbling, if I’m being honest with myself. I tend to get a little lost in the weeds sometimes, overthinking the small stuff while the big picture just drifts by, but I suppose that's just how my brain is wired. I guess I'm just rambling now, but I figured it was worth mentioning. kaže:
I have to agree there... I’ve always felt that once an argument starts feeling worn out and repetitive, it just loses its punch. It’s hard to take something seriously when you feel like you've heard the exact same talking points a thousand times before.
Look, I’ll admit I went with that whole "the joke is on you" line, but honestly, I only did it because you hit me with such a tired, cliché argument first. I figured if I just threw your own logic right back at you, you'd finally see just how uninspired and predictable that reasoning actually is.

Yeah.

No, let me clear that up. What I’m saying is that, personally, "A" just isn't my cup of tea. If there was any confusion earlier, let me rephrase it this way: I’m not claiming that Ayn Rand’s literature and philosophy are objectively, measurably garbage—I have no idea how one would even go about quantifying whether art or thought is "bad" in an objective sense, nor do I know if such a metric could ever be reliable. All I’m doing is speaking strictly for myself. I’m just saying that, for me, it's simply not good. 🙂

Honestly, I don't think you're embarrassing yourself at all. It just feels like we're speaking two completely different languages here.

If I told you right now that I actually get what you mean... would you believe me?

If I were to ask you right now to stop bickering with your opponent and instead start discussing how we actually use analogies during a debate, would you be willing to do that?

William Gonzalez3 said:If I were to ask you right now to stop bickering with your opponent and instead start discussing how we actually use analogies during a debate, would you be willing to do that?

If I were in a debate about analogies, but I used an analogy that wasn't directly related to the concept of analogies itself—but instead focused on some other topic—would that even count as a discussion about analogies?...

If you were just throwing an analogy out there without any context, then I suppose you’d be wrong—because discussing the use of analogies isn't just about stating them. It’s more about actually dissecting them—analyzing how they function within a debate, evaluating whether they are even appropriate or fitting, looking at their structure, and essentially questioning their utility in the conversation itself.

Quincy:

I was thinking about that old story involving Quincy... It’s heavy stuff. Really makes you sit back and wonder about the weight people carry. Just one of those things that stays with you... kaže: If you just drop an analogy without any context, then no, that doesn't count. Discussing the use of analogies isn't just about throwing them out there... It’s about actually breaking them down. You have to look at how they function within the argument itself. You need to analyze why they're being used, whether they actually fit the situation, if they're even appropriate, or how they're structured... That's where the real conversation happens.

A little while back, I started a thread about skepticism and how people tend to relativize everything... Indiana Jones and philosophy... I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It’s funny how a massive blockbuster franchise can actually hold so much weight when you dig beneath the surface. Most people just see the whip, the hat, and the narrow escapes, but there's something deeper going on there. It’s really about the tension between faith and reason, isn't it? Or even the way we pursue truth versus how we seek power. You look at Indy, and he’s this academic who constantly finds himself forced to act in the physical world. It's that classic struggle between the life of the mind and the reality of action... It makes you wonder if all that searching for relics is really just a search for meaning in a chaotic world. Just some food for thought...So, here's the deal... the topic is... Well, I guess we're finally getting to it... It was all tied back to the philosophy of tools and weaponry... even if they didn't explicitly say so at the time.
I probably assumed the context would make everything clear on its own. Since this is a philosophy thread, I figured the analogy would speak for itself... I was just watching this little film clip... and it really got me thinking.)
So, that was then... but now, we’re really getting into the meat of it. We're talking about analogies and how easily they can be totally misunderstood...

So, I guess that analogy just took on a whole new meaning once they deleted it... since nobody actually seemed to get what I was getting at anyway...

I'm not sure if you're actually following what I'm trying to get at here...
Look, I’m not here to troll anyone or stir up unnecessary drama... honestly. I'm just looking for a bit of empathy here. I want people to try and meet me halfway and see things from a slightly more elevated perspective, much like how we expect people to approach an analogy...

Take a look at how we approach things like questioning our own perception of reality. If we’re using Platonov's allegory of the cave to make a point, we aren't going to start nitpicking his arguments based on the technicalities of spelunking... nor would we call his ideas nonsense just because he isn't an expert in cave science. Spelunking doesn't have anything to do with philosophy... it's just not relevant to the actual point being made.

An analogy simply fails to function if it relies on loaded premises or demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the very subjects it seeks to compare.

In that light, your so-called "analogy"—assuming one can even grant it such a title—is catastrophically inept, a point that I believe even Druid has already pointed out to you...

feralranger said:An analogy simply fails to function if it relies on loaded premises or demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the very subjects it seeks to compare.

In that light, your so-called "analogy"—assuming one can even grant it such a title—is catastrophically inept, a point that I believe even Druid has already pointed out to you...

What kind of sabotage are we even talking about here...? What exactly did I plant...?
Right here, right now... with that statement, you're totally twisting my words... Yeah, I’m definitely stirring the pot... I honestly don't even know...

Druid said:

Also, just an analogy... obviously that doesn't prove anything on its own. Analogies are really just helpful little narratives. They help us frame things through examples. Depending on how sharp, smart, or precise they actually are, they can make complex ideas much easier to wrap our heads around...

I'm on board with how he defined that analogy...

feralranger said:An analogy simply fails to function if it relies on loaded premises or demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the very subjects it seeks to compare.

In that light, your so-called "analogy"—assuming one can even grant it such a title—is catastrophically inept, a point that I believe even Druid has already pointed out to you...

You only really reach for an analogy when there’s a gap in understanding. It’s that moment where one part of the explanation just isn't clicking... so you bridge that void by drawing a comparison to something else. You take that unknown concept and tie it to something we already grasp, or something much more familiar to our daily lives... it fills in the blanks.

feralranger said:An analogy simply fails to function if it relies on loaded premises or demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the very subjects it seeks to compare.

In that light, your so-called "analogy"—assuming one can even grant it such a title—is catastrophically inept, a point that I believe even Druid has already pointed out to you...

Maybe the one being rude is actually the person who just doesn't get the analogy...

Example:
I feel like a fish in water.

Could this be interpreted as someone just being intentionally dense... if that's what they're actually aiming for?
So, look, I’m clearly not a fish. How can I even claim to feel like one when I'm not a fish? Especially since I have absolutely no clue what it actually feels like to be a fish. Are we talking about freshwater or saltwater? Which one...? Why didn't I just clarify my analogy from the start?....

If you want an analogy to actually work—just like any other kind of argument—both people in the conversation need to be on the same page. It really requires a bit of teamwork from both sides...

It feels like every single argument can be dismantled so easily nowadays... You just have to lean into relativism, play the skeptic, or start twisting the logic around... It’s almost too easy to shut down a real conversation that way...

electricscout23 said:Quincy:

I was thinking about that old story involving Quincy... It’s heavy stuff. Really makes you sit back and wonder about the weight people carry. Just one of those things that stays with you... kaže: If you just drop an analogy without any context, then no, that doesn't count. Discussing the use of analogies isn't just about throwing them out there... It’s about actually breaking them down. You have to look at how they function within the argument itself. You need to analyze why they're being used, whether they actually fit the situation, if they're even appropriate, or how they're structured... That's where the real conversation happens.

A little while back, I started a thread about skepticism and how people tend to relativize everything... Indiana Jones and philosophy... I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It’s funny how a massive blockbuster franchise can actually hold so much weight when you dig beneath the surface. Most people just see the whip, the hat, and the narrow escapes, but there's something deeper going on there. It’s really about the tension between faith and reason, isn't it? Or even the way we pursue truth versus how we seek power. You look at Indy, and he’s this academic who constantly finds himself forced to act in the physical world. It's that classic struggle between the life of the mind and the reality of action... It makes you wonder if all that searching for relics is really just a search for meaning in a chaotic world. Just some food for thought...So, here's the deal... the topic is... Well, I guess we're finally getting to it... It was all tied back to the philosophy of tools and weaponry... even if they didn't explicitly say so at the time.
I probably assumed the context would make everything clear on its own. Since this is a philosophy thread, I figured the analogy would speak for itself... I was just watching this little film clip... and it really got me thinking.)
So, that was then... but now, we’re really getting into the meat of it. We're talking about analogies and how easily they can be totally misunderstood...

So, I guess that analogy just took on a whole new meaning once they deleted it... since nobody actually seemed to get what I was getting at anyway...

I'm not sure if you're actually following what I'm trying to get at here...
Look, I’m not here to troll anyone or stir up unnecessary drama... honestly. I'm just looking for a bit of empathy here. I want people to try and meet me halfway and see things from a slightly more elevated perspective, much like how we expect people to approach an analogy...

Take a look at how we approach things like questioning our own perception of reality. If we’re using Platonov's allegory of the cave to make a point, we aren't going to start nitpicking his arguments based on the technicalities of spelunking... nor would we call his ideas nonsense just because he isn't an expert in cave science. Spelunking doesn't have anything to do with philosophy... it's just not relevant to the actual point being made.

The analogy was actually understood perfectly well.
I mean, there are times when you feel a bit like Indiana Jones—you sort of wield philosophy like a revolver, whereas others handle it more like a sword, which, I guess, gives you this sense of superiority over them, and so on.
The topic itself wasn't misunderstood; it was just fundamentally pointless.

For instance, if we discuss the idea of questioning one's own perception of reality and we use Platonov's allegory of the cave to explain it, we aren't going to try to debunk his arguments using facts about geology, nor would we claim he's talking nonsense just because geology isn't philosophy.

Of course we wouldn't, but if someone uses an analogy to compare things that aren't even remotely similar, then I think it’s fair to say the analogy simply doesn't hold up.
To stick with the comparison between Jesus and Ayn Rand, that specific analogy feels flawed to me. The people mentioned by the druid truly do follow the teachings of Ayn Rand, whereas the people you brought up clearly don't follow Jesus's teachings, nor do they base their actions on his doctrine or act in accordance with it.
Because of that, I don't think you can really call Jesus their guru, or call them his followers, which—in my view—makes the whole analogy incorrect.

William Gonzalez3 said:The analogy was actually understood perfectly well.
I mean, there are times when you feel a bit like Indiana Jones—you sort of wield philosophy like a revolver, whereas others handle it more like a sword, which, I guess, gives you this sense of superiority over them, and so on.
The topic itself wasn't misunderstood; it was just fundamentally pointless.

For instance, if we discuss the idea of questioning one's own perception of reality and we use Platonov's allegory of the cave to explain it, we aren't going to try to debunk his arguments using facts about geology, nor would we claim he's talking nonsense just because geology isn't philosophy.

Of course we wouldn't, but if someone uses an analogy to compare things that aren't even remotely similar, then I think it’s fair to say the analogy simply doesn't hold up.
To stick with the comparison between Jesus and Ayn Rand, that specific analogy feels flawed to me. The people mentioned by the druid truly do follow the teachings of Ayn Rand, whereas the people you brought up clearly don't follow Jesus's teachings, nor do they base their actions on his doctrine or act in accordance with it.
Because of that, I don't think you can really call Jesus their guru, or call them his followers, which—in my view—makes the whole analogy incorrect.

So it actually *was* misunderstood...🤦

A philosophical debate is like a sword fight. There’s an aesthetic value to it... a certain beauty and discipline. Bringing out a gun might not be against the rules, but it isn't pretty to watch.

So, look:
I brought up the gun to point out something bad. Anyone can pull a trigger and end a fight instantly.
It's the same with arguments... you can just relativize them until they lose all meaning.
Or you can kill any argument with skepticism, since nothing can ever truly be proven.

When I mentioned that I occasionally resort to that method, I wasn't bragging. I was admitting that I use those dirty tricks too... especially when I see someone else doing it.

And finally...

The fact that you interpreted my point that way says more about you than it does about me...

You could say you were the one who pulled the gun during a sword duel.
But that’s not quite right... you did something even worse... you prevented the duel from happening at all...

But in the end, everything turned out fine...

Right?

Maneo’s analogy holds water.

When Druid uses the term "Druid," they're being sarcastic, saying:

"Ayn Rand is just the patron saint for Japan's financial hustlers and that shallow business subculture—basically the handbook for wealthy socialites in Beverly Hills looking for their next facelift."

By that same logic, Maneo uses it as a jab when he says:

"Jesus Christ is the guru for corrupt priests and religious zealots who fleece naive people out of their money while abusing children."

Both statements are identical in one way: the core intent is pure mockery.

Besides, I haven't actually read Ayn Rand, so I have no clue what she's really about.

I mentioned using a gun as a negative thing...

Is there actually some technical term for this kind of philosophical debate?
I’ve noticed that I tend to do this to my interlocutors quite often when I'm discussing something.

Well, as you can see—and I say this quite tentatively—the fact that you view the use of a gun in a philosophical debate as a bad thing based solely on the opening post doesn't really follow from anything else (just as it isn't clear what you consider the use of a gun to mean in such a debate). It's much like how one couldn't infer from an introductory post that you view a philosophical discussion as a sword fight, nor could anyone assume you find sword fighting to be aesthetically pleasing or beautiful.
Furthermore—if we might just set aside the fact that you didn't actually say much more in your initial post than what you did say—the topic itself is, I suppose, somewhat nonsensical. There isn't really a formal designation for this specific (or any other) type of philosophical debate, mostly because philosophy doesn't really have these kinds of subcategories.
So, I guess it's not just that your opening post was, shall we say, incomplete; your entire premise seems to be a bit off.

One might say that you're the one who pulled the gun during the sword duel.

No, I don't think that's accurate—it would be a flawed analogy, I suppose.
Threads with ambiguous or poorly defined opening posts are cleared out across all our subforums without exception, and I happen to be the one responsible for moderating and removing those types of threads here.
So, it isn't really about making a "dirty move" or anything of the sort; it's simply about removing content that doesn't belong in this space.

William Gonzalez3 said:

I mentioned using a gun as a negative thing...

Is there actually some technical term for this kind of philosophical debate?
I’ve noticed that I tend to do this to my interlocutors quite often when I'm discussing something.

Well, as you can see—and I say this quite tentatively—the fact that you view the use of a gun in a philosophical debate as a bad thing based solely on the opening post doesn't really follow from anything else (just as it isn't clear what you consider the use of a gun to mean in such a debate). It's much like how one couldn't infer from an introductory post that you view a philosophical discussion as a sword fight, nor could anyone assume you find sword fighting to be aesthetically pleasing or beautiful.
Furthermore—if we might just set aside the fact that you didn't actually say much more in your initial post than what you did say—the topic itself is, I suppose, somewhat nonsensical. There isn't really a formal designation for this specific (or any other) type of philosophical debate, mostly because philosophy doesn't really have these kinds of subcategories.
So, I guess it's not just that your opening post was, shall we say, incomplete; your entire premise seems to be a bit off.

One might say that you're the one who pulled the gun during the sword duel.

No, I don't think that's accurate—it would be a flawed analogy, I suppose.
Threads with ambiguous or poorly defined opening posts are cleared out across all our subforums without exception, and I happen to be the one responsible for moderating and removing those types of threads here.
So, it isn't really about making a "dirty move" or anything of the sort; it's simply about removing content that doesn't belong in this space.

There are people out there who are half-baked, people who lack any sense of style, people living meaningless lives, people whom the experts simply don't respect......

People like that ought to be wiped off the face of the earth because they just don't belong here ......