The Glade 4.0

Incorrect.

Analogy is exactly that: a comparison of the like (i.e. equivalent) features of two things.



As such, I listed 3 methods in which your analogy is false. You've proposed another one directly tied with one listed; that is that the rationale between two different items is similar.

In other words, if I'm understanding you properly, you're stating that the distinction between murder and self-defense killing is determined by society via law, and that the justification for government intrusion (specifically in regards to smoking) is determined by society via law as well, and as such are similar enough for comparison.

As such, by comparing the two you're indicating that all actions adjudicated by law hold the same weight, which is demonstrably false by the existence of graduated penalties in our system. Therefore, the analogy fails by either failing to compare like outcome or like cause (I'm not sure which here).

Furthermore, utilizing this reasoning, you're trying to create an Appeal to Emotion paired with your false analogy, and it should thus be doubly discounted.


The analogy in question fails on all fronts RD. Now, eventually, if pressed hard enough, all analogies will eventually fail because otherwise you'd literally be comparing two identical situations/events. Given that caveat, it is the responsibility of the author (of the analogy) to ensure that as best possible it stands up to scrutiny. Best way to do that, in my opinion, is to not use analogy. Again, anecdotes and illustrative examples hold more weight in a logical debate, because their particular specifics don't precisely matter. The specifics of an analogy do matter, on the other hand.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The point of an analogy should be to show a general agreement in the main principle.

The flaw is that the main principle between murder and self defense is the infringement of the right of another, not the killing.

Thus any analogy should be shaped in a way to minimize the reading in it of other principles. Murder and defense is a bad analogy since many would construe the principle to be killing.

The difference in principle is the undertaking of protection to protect one's rights FROM infringement versus acting TO infringe on another's rights.

The action of killing itself is only the means by which the moral or immoral action occurs.

Of course the purpose of an analogy in usage with a lawyer is NOT TO DEFINE PRINCIPLE but to confuse it - thus creating doubt in the minds of the jury. This is done by creating analogies where the ACTION is similar but the principle is not thereby confusing the jury into believe the principle is more /less just because of confusion with something that is/is not just.

You're mind has suffered because of your chosen profession RD.

Your ability to manipulate without realizing it has increased.

You've lost substance for style and you have my condolences.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Let me try explaining this in semi-mathematical terms. The logic of my analogy is as follows:

Let A = Blue Laws
Let B = tobacco taxes
Let C = government intrusions

Let X = murder
Let Y = self-defense killing
Let Z = homicide

A and B are both subsets of C, but because A and B have different motivating rationales, it is not inconsistent to condemn one while supporting the other. Similarly, X and Y are both subsets of Z, but because X and Y have different motivating rationales, it is not inconsistent to condemn one while supporting the other.

RD, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that analogies have no place.

Indeed, in your profession they're basically a necessity.

Instead, what I'm saying is that you need to be very wary of extending that usage in your profession to the rest of your intellectual pursuits.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Even without asking you to define Blue Laws, which I'd like because I'm not sure what you mean.... this abstraction of the analogy continues to fail because the meta-groups are dissimilar, as I stated before:

Homicide is an individual action that one person undertakes.
Government intrusion (for this abstraction I think you'd be better utilizing "regulation of behavior," but let's not alter terminology midstream) however is a group action.

By comparing the two, as I stated above, you're indicating that the actions are "equivalent" or, if you prefer, "similar enough for comparison." They are not, specifically because one is individualistic and the other is not. Like action is still not being compared with like action.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You guys are noting distinctions between the situation at hand and the one to which I drew an analogy (like I said, very lawyerly of you), but again, of course there are distinctions. It's possible to find similarities and differences between virtually any set of situations. When evaluating the usefulness of an analogy, therefore, the question isn't, "Are there differences?" The question is, "Do the relevant similarities outweigh the relevant differences?"

Here, Vind argued that the seeming disconnect between Aizle's positions was attributable to hypocrisy because the disparate positions related to actions of the same type (i.e. government intrusions). That was the relevant dimension of comparison, and my analogy was therefore designed to highlight another situation in which seemingly disparate positions are often held with respect to actions of the same type (i.e. homicides). The differences you guys raised don't strike me as sufficiently relevant to outweigh that similarity.

Personally I take these taxes as luxuary taxes, on an activity I enjoy. However if you guys view this tax as some sort of payment towards future health needs, you should probably look to other stuff which are fine if taken in moderation but deadly if consumed in excess over a long period of time. Here's a brief list:

Sugar
Salt
Fats - Oils (including any deep fried stuff)
Caffine
Alcohol
milk based products - Cheese, butter, etc
Vitamin E (further studies for re-varification still needed)
All medicines

I'd normally put water in there, but you'd have to be really really stupid to drink yourself to death with water.

Unfortunately I don't believe any of those have as high tax as Cigarettes.

I'm not disagreeing with you, except in this case I think ignorant is the operative word over stupid. The sponsors of the contest were the stupid ones.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/

Water intoxication eyed in ‘Hold Your Wee for a Wii’ contest death

Woman in water drinking contest dies
MSNBC - updated 7:24 p.m. PT, Sat., Jan. 13, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A woman who competed in a radio station’s contest to see how much water she could drink without going to the bathroom died of water intoxication, the coroner’s office said Saturday.

Jennifer Strange, 28, was found dead Friday in her suburban Rancho Cordova home hours after taking part in the “Hold Your Wee for a Wii” contest in which KDND 107.9 promised a Nintendo Wii video game system for the winner.

“She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad,” said Laura Rios, one of Strange’s co-workers at Radiological Associates of Sacramento. “She was crying and that was the last that anyone had heard from her.”

It was not immediately know how much water Strange consumed.

A preliminary investigation found evidence “consistent with a water intoxication death,” said assistant Coroner Ed Smith.

John Geary, vice president and marketing manager for Entercom Sacramento, the station’s owner, said station personnel were stunned when they heard of Strange’s death.

“We are awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred,” he said.

Initially, contestants were handed eight-ounce bottles of water to drink every 15 minutes.

“They were small little half-pint bottles, so we thought it was going to be easy,” said fellow contestant James Ybarra of Woodland. “They told us if you don’t feel like you can do this, don’t put your health at risk.”

Ybarra said he quit after drinking five bottles. “My bladder couldn’t handle it anymore,” he added.

After he quit, he said, the remaining contestants, including Strange, were given even bigger bottles to drink.

“I was talking to her and she was a nice lady,” Ybarra said. “She was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for kids.”

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

It actually happeneds a lot more than people realise... >.>

Then you fail at logic today. Go back two spaces.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Now you can see why so many people in southwest Michigan drive to Indiana to get their cartons of cigs. It's over $1/pack difference between the two states.

_________________