Knife Control

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I did consider it to be an informal (covert actually) method of arguing by analogy[/quote]

There is no such thing as an “informal” argument from analogy. Something is either an argument from analogy, or it is not. And this is not.[/quote]
You’re not really in a position to tell me what does not exist. I’ve seen it

I’ve also shown it - haha

Have a nice day then[/quote]

You don’t know what “argument from analogy” is, so how can you have shown it?

You are confusing “an argument wherein two subjects can be set up as analogous” with “an argument from analogy.” I am not trying to be condescending here but you honestly need to know what it is you’re accusing me of before you accuse me of it.

[smh23]

Put it this way: I don’t think that an armed college campus is anything like as dangerous as an armed courtroom.

I have A] Never contradicted this statement and B] expressed it openly. And most importantly, my argument is perfectly unharmed by it. Which is proof in itself of the fact that I have not argued from analogy–my argument could not withstand the setting up of its two subjects as not alike and yet still be valid if it were an argument from analogy.

Edit: apparently valid, because it wouldn’t be valid anyway.

[squating_bear]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You are confusing “an argument wherein two subjects can be set up as analogous” with “an argument from analogy.” I am not trying to be condescending here but you honestly need to know what it is you’re accusing me of before you accuse me of it.[/quote]
What happens if it is “an argument wherein two subjects [i]are [/i]set up as analogous”?

That is what you did

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

You are confusing “an argument wherein two subjects can be set up as analogous” with “an argument from analogy.” I am not trying to be condescending here but you honestly need to know what it is you’re accusing me of before you accuse me of it.[/quote]
What happens if it is “an argument wherein two subjects [i]are [/i]set up as analogous”?

That is what you did[/quote]

No it isn’t, they were explicitly identified as being not alike in M, L, N, and O properties (as I’ve proven to death in the A is B, C is ~B post) and so it is ludicrous to argue that analogical reasoning–which hinges upon the fact that X and Y analogues share M, L, N, and O properties–was being surreptitiously peddled. Again, as I’ve made abundantly clear, a maxim was deduced and then reapplied, and upon reapplication the likeness or unlikeness of the courts and universities meant exactly nothing–the courts did not matter anymore–not whatsoever–and the only mention I made of them was to acknowledge that the maxim was much more clearly applicable to them than to the universities. Again–once the maxim was summoned, the courts never needed to be mentioned again. This means in absolute terms that my argument was not analogical.

Furthermore, you accused me of “arguing from analogy,” a different beast altogether and which you very obviously did not understand in the slightest.

[squating_bear]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

1. of uncontroversial case A (court room), X = gun control is true
   2. court room A analogous to B = campus because they share attributes H = tension, L = irresponsibily, M = consent, etc. (there may or may not be more)

Therefor, of B, X = gun control is true

Holy smokes - this logic stuff is pretty cool - you did do that, no?[/quote]

No, I did not. And the hinge is at premise 2, which I’ve emboldened. Figure out why on your own because I’ve already explained it ad nauseum. I’ll give you a hint: when I connected the volatility of a courtroom with that of a college campus, how did I express that connection?

Again, and if you don’t get this then this discussion is over because I’m not going to teach you logic for free over the internet:

[quote]“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.[/quote]

As for the shuffling and equivocating you’re doing with the “aw shucks, you gon’ toss that formal jibber-jabber my way and I ain’t gon’ be able to fight fair,” I really don’t give a damn whether or not you feel it fair to examine the logical structure of an argument which has been accused of being logically specious, because I certainly do.[/quote]
I don’t know what a hinge is either, but what I had quoted of you didn’t mention volatility

That must have been a different post. Why ask for a [i]direct [/i]quote and then bring in other stuff?

I can think of a reason, but can you?

[squating_bear]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]
Exactly common may or may not be the word, but you did

What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C

1. irresponsibility
2. tension
3. consent - choice to be their. You said it where you are quoted, it is true for some and not for others

[quote]and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]It is observable that we have gun control in both - but you were making an argument that it was the right thing. Observable or not shouldn’t matter if it is what is being argued

You ask for directly-quoted text to support, I’ve done this repeatedly. You asked me to not chop it up - so I didn’t. Would you now like me to? This game really is more fun than it might seem

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]
Exactly common may or may not be the word, but you did

What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C

1. irresponsibility
2. tension
3. consent - choice to be their. You said it where you are quoted, it is true for some and not for others
   [/quote]

I explicitly stated that they were not alike in any of these attributes, the first two of which are matters of degree and the last of which is binary and very often an attribute of university and not court.

I have proven this here:

[quote]“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B [/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D [/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D [/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.[/quote]

That last portion bears reiteration: analogical reasoning doesn’t work when the analogues are set up an unlike entities.

Not that any of this matters, because I will reiterate here that you do not actually know what an argument from analogy is.

[Legionary]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

1. of uncontroversial case A (court room), X = gun control is true
   2. court room A analogous to B = campus because they share attributes H = tension, L = irresponsibily, M = consent, etc. (there may or may not be more)

Therefor, of B, X = gun control is true

Holy smokes - this logic stuff is pretty cool - you did do that, no?[/quote]

No, I did not. And the hinge is at premise 2, which I’ve emboldened. Figure out why on your own because I’ve already explained it ad nauseum. I’ll give you a hint: when I connected the volatility of a courtroom with that of a college campus, how did I express that connection?

Again, and if you don’t get this then this discussion is over because I’m not going to teach you logic for free over the internet:

[quote]“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.[/quote]

As for the shuffling and equivocating you’re doing with the “aw shucks, you gon’ toss that formal jibber-jabber my way and I ain’t gon’ be able to fight fair,” I really don’t give a damn whether or not you feel it fair to examine the logical structure of an argument which has been accused of being logically specious, because I certainly do.[/quote]
I don’t know what a hinge is either, but what I had quoted of you didn’t mention volatility

That must have been a different post. Why ask for a [i]direct [/i]quote and then bring in other stuff?

I can think of a reason, but can you?[/quote]

Perhaps you should study elementary logic. You’re butchering it right now.

[smh23]

^ Do you not understand that the three points on which your argument is resting are absolutely untrue?

That is, I have held from the very outset that courts and universities are not alike in the amount of volatility and tension present in each, and I made the point from the very beginning that university is voluntary in all cases and attendance at a court is very often not so. My argument never hinged on whether or not university and court were alike or unalike in their infinite number of attributes and was therefore not analogical. Court came up simply as a means to a deduced maxim–it was thereafter discarded. That is not analogical reasoning. In fact, it’s the opposite, because the dissimilarities between courts and universities were explicitly noted. Stop pretending otherwise.

But again, it doesn’t matter, because your accusation of “argument from analogy” was something else entirely, something which I’ve shown to have been untrue.

Now I’m going to re-post these:

[quote][b]

1. Of uncontroversial case A, X is true
2. Uncontroversial case A is analogous to controversial case B because they share attributes H, L, M, K, and O

Therefore, of controversial case B, X is true.[/b][/quote]

And:

[quote]1. Because Push agrees with the jury’s verdict in the Lorena Bobbitt trial, Push necessarily believes that a person should be acquitted of criminal charges so long as that person can prove that s/he felt an irresistible impulse to commit the crime in question and that that impulse was born of temporary insanity.
2. I believe that Carl Lee Hailey of John Grisham’s A Time to Kill felt an insanity-born irresistible impulse to kill his daughter’s rapists and therefore that Push, having already been shown to believe such an impulse to be reason for acquittal, should vote to acquit Carl Lee Hailey of the charge of murder.

Note that, unlike in the fire/taxi argument, Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt do not need to share any outside attributes M, L, or O in order for the argument to work. Whether or not they share the attribute of temporary insanity is the argument’s target, not a means by which it strikes its target–which means that the argument is not one from analogy, regardless of the fact that somebody might be capable of expressing the two subjects of the argument as analogous to each other. Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M] AND YET THE ARGUMENT WILL STILL BE PERFECTLY VALID AND SOUND SO LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT PREMISE 1 IS TRUE AND MY BELIEFS EXPRESSED IN PREMISE 2 ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE.[/quote]

You haven’t addressed it, and that doesn’t seem fair since it’s the clearest expression of the difference between arguments that analogical and arguments that are not that has been proffered by either of us in this thread (not that I’d expect you to have proffered such an example because, again, you did not know what argument from analogy was at the outset of this debate and I’m fairly sure that you still don’t). Here is a logical progression for you to chew on:

---

1. The kind of reasoning on display in the first of the above examples is analogical reasoning.
2. The kind of reasoning on display in the second of the above examples is not analogical reasoning.
3. The kind of reasoning on display in my original argument about courts and universities is the kind of reasoning that is on display in the second and not in the first of the above examples.

Therefore, my argument was not one from analogy and did not depend upon analogical reasoning.

And now I have honestly exhausted what free time I had left and have a ton of work to do.

[smh23]

Woops Legionary–I had typed that “^” before seeing your post. Obviously, it was not in any way directed at you.

[squating_bear]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]
Exactly common may or may not be the word, but you did

What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C

1. irresponsibility
2. tension
3. consent - choice to be their. You said it where you are quoted, it is true for some and not for others
   [/quote]

I explicitly stated that they were not alike in any of these attributes, the first two of which are matters of degree and the last of which is binary and very often an attribute of university and not court.

I have proven this here:
[/quote]
eh. wut?

You sent me on a wild goose chase and I found you you’re wild goose

It’s right at the bottom of page 4

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again, I can only use my own experience.

Courtrooms are EXTREMELY volatile places. Closed, often times cramped and confined spaces…with not only emotions running high…but people often on edge; within feet of the source of their pain and/or anger; ready to lash out at anybody and everybody.

And this is just with the LAW ABIDING portion of the people. Add to it thugs and criminals about to lose their freedoms, and everything is magnified.

Bringing in a firearm is like bringing in matches to a room with a leaking Propane Tank.

A Courtroom is simply FAR different from “other places”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Exactly: the right to bear arms can be temporarily and circumstantially revoked under certain circumstances. In this case, circumstances involving lots of irresponsible people and high amounts of tension.

And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.

Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons. But it is my honest and somewhat informed opinion that a college dorm is far more like a courtroom with regard to the characteristics in question than many people believe. If I ran a university, I simply would not trust the student body enough to allow them to keep guns in their rooms.[/quote]
You mean to tell me that in all these multiple times I have quoted and re-quoted, you haven’t seen this?

Yea that’s exactly what I was saying to VTballa. However I thought you did see it and just chose to twist and speak on other stuff - maybe I was wrong

Equal magnitude isn’t required for something to be an analogy

[squating_bear]

[quote][b]

1. Of uncontroversial case A, X is true
2. Uncontroversial case A is analogous to controversial case B because they share attributes H, L, M, K, and O

Therefore, of controversial case B, X is true.[/b][/quote]
I have done this one, and I do not remember your response too well - so

Did you miss it? Because you’re telling me I didn’t do it, when I did…

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Equal magnitude isn’t required for something to be an analogy[/quote]

Nothing is required for something to be an analogy. Analogies are sometimes somewhat useful as purely illustrative side-bars but they are never acceptable entrants in a logical progression or a serious argument. Logicians have a saying: all analogies limp. They say this because even the simplest analogical expression–boat:sea:road, for example–can be mercilessly destroyed by somebody with half a brain and half an understanding of disanalogy.

What you are not understanding is that we’re after analogical reasoning here and not analogies themselves. I can analogize and then disanalogize any two things: courts and universities, Hitler and Art Garfunkle, the sun and Ron Jeremy. Anything. The point is that I cannot make an argument from analogy, and I haven’t. But instead of trusting me on that one, I would suggest that you learn what the terms mean and decide for yourself.

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote][b]

1. Of uncontroversial case A, X is true
2. Uncontroversial case A is analogous to controversial case B because they share attributes H, L, M, K, and O

Therefore, of controversial case B, X is true.[/b][/quote]
I have done this one, and I do not remember your response too well - so

Did you miss it? Because you’re telling me I didn’t do it, when I did…[/quote]

I have already shown you that I did not do this. In fact, when I explicitly said that courts and universities are unalike with regard to volatility and tension and mandatory attendance, I did exactly the opposite of this.

I will spell it out further: volatility and tension are measurable only in magnitude and not in kind, since every situation involving human beings is to some extent given to volatility and tension. A daycare center is less volatile (as we’re using the term) than is a Starbucks, which is less volatile than a Yankee game, which is less volatile than an Eagles game, which is less volatile than a Syrian refugee camp, which is less volatile than the West Bank.

Which is a long way of trying to make you understand that all we have in the instance of volatility is a measure of degree.

Which is to say that if somebody says entity A is not comparable to entity B in terms of degree of volatility, then that person is expressing the attribute “volatility” as a dissimilarity.

Which is another way of saying that I expressed volatility, tension, and mandatory attendance as dissimilarities.

Which is another way of saying that premise 2 above–“Uncontroversial case A is analogous to controversial case B because they share attributes H, L, M, K, and O” --was never expressed by me.

Which is another way of saying, please refer back to the Bobbitt/Hailey example above, because you still haven’t even tried to lift a finger to prove that the reasoning therein was different from the reasoning which I used against Push. [Which you can’t, because it wasn’t.]

[squating_bear]

As I had you quoted, you expressed irresponsibility, tension and voluntary attendance as similarities

And you proceeded from that towards gun control on campuses

Whether or not that is valid is a different story. You asked for the quote, and that’s what I’ve been on all along. Volatility has nothing to do with it

(isn’t that right - if a difference can be raised that wasn’t a part of your original argument, then that difference is meaningless - right?)

(if you can later backturn and say that a piece of an argument wasn’t valid - it just possibly turns the original argument into an invalid argument - right? But still an argument is what I’m saying…)

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
As I had you quoted, you expressed irresponsibility, tension and voluntary attendance as similarities
[/quote]

Jesus.

No I didn’t. I explicitly expressed the first two as dissimilarities in degree, which I’ve already shown to be the only kind of dissimilarity that the attributes “volatility” and “tension” are capable of embodying. Which means unequivocally that I expressed volatility (or irresponsibility–take your pick) and tension as dissimilarities [u] EXCLUSIVELY[/u].

I expressed the third–in/voluntary attendance–as a dissimilarity in kind: college voluntary, court involuntary. Now that I think of it, that was overly simplistic: attendance at court is sometimes voluntary. Do you get that? If anything, I misrepresented courts and universities as more dissimilar than they actually are.

I cannot express this any more clearly to you.

I will end with this, though: your accusation here was that I was making an argument from analogy. None of the piffle that you’re dancing around with here would amount to evidence of that claim even if it were true (which , by the way, it isn’t). I will re-emphasize here the unfortunate truth that you accused me of something without actually knowing the definition of that thing.

And now, unless you can prove to me that the kind of reasoning which guided my original post is not the same kind of reasoning in the Bobbitt/Hailey example–which it absolutely is, by the way, so good luck with that one–I can’t waste any more time beating up on somebody who doesn’t even know the rules of boxing.

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]

Exactly common may or may not be the word, but you did
[/quote]

I missed this the first time. It seems that every time I look back I find another equivocating misstep on your part.

No no no no.

Exactly or not exactly.

Argument from analogy depends upon shared attributes.

A is B.

C is either B or ~B.

C is either exactly like A with regard to attribute B, or it is not.

If smh is saying that it is not, then smh is not arguing from analogy.

[squating_bear]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]

Exactly common may or may not be the word, but you did
[/quote]

I missed this the first time. It seems that every time I look back I find another equivocating misstep on your part.

No no no no.

Exactly or not exactly.

Argument from analogy depends upon shared attributes.

A is B.

C is either B or ~B.

C is either exactly like A with regard to attribute B, or it is not.

If smh is saying that it is not, then smh is not arguing from analogy.[/quote]
Alright, I started to figure that might be the problem

Thing is - look at the post directly above yours above this (2 posts up from where you’re reading)

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
As I had you quoted, you expressed irresponsibility, tension and voluntary attendance as similarities
[/quote]

Jesus.

No I didn’t. [/quote]
Similarities vs. ‘shared attributes’ and I don’t even know the lingo

You’re way to caught up on that tho

You listed them as similarities and dissimilarities at the same exact time, by stating that they are way more similar than most consider AND THAT MEANS SOMETHING. You stated that that matters - as in - it plays into an argument. Even if it’s not perfect. That’s what you were saying on the bottom of pg 4, as I understood

[squating_bear]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I will end with this, though: your accusation here was that I was making an argument from analogy. [/quote]
Actually, no

An analogy only, then I told you I would dance to your tune for a while so that you could see what kind of music you make

An analogy only is what this all started on. You twist by habit, I do estimate now that you do not know what you do.

It took a while for you to admit even an analogy alone, then it took longer for you to break down further. Here’s my first post that started it all

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I see you continue with your campus/courtroom analogy which you insist you never made. "But, but, but, you’ve got to understand ‘magnitude’, dude!" Ummm…sure, pal.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ.

It is now clear to me that you need to start learning about what an analogy is and what an analogy isn’t, and I mean beginning with the very fundamentals of logic. I will explain this to you as soon as you do the following:

Tell me exactly what is the direct analogy I’ve drawn. Express it in the formal A is to B as C is to D.[/quote]

Joseph Smith.

It is now clear to me that you need to understand the following (repeated):

In any conceivably reasonable scenario a college campus can never “lock down” itself with metal detectors, X-ray equipment and such like a courtroom or airport can.

There are thousands of Amanda Collins type rape victims all over the 50 states every single year. None of them have been raped in courtrooms. Many of them have been raped on college campuses that have these “impressive” police departments with which all “non-paranoid” people should place their undying trust.
[/quote]

No no.

You’ve been attacking me for my “analogy” over the course of the past two pages.

Express this analogy to me in formal terms. A is to B as C is to D.

Let’s see it.[/quote]
court room attendies is to court rooms

as

college students is to college campuses

A is to B

as

C is to D

yeah, I think that works - could be wrong - but your response should be interesting…

An analogy or not doesn’t have jack to do with magnitude, a ‘direct’ analogy doesn’t even sound right in the first place…

What you did can be expressed in formal analogous expressions - now what?[/quote]
I never pretended to have you beat on understandings of logic

I told you that you are more slippery than you probably realize. I had fun - good day, sir.

Hope you learned something - I could have fun in many ways but unlocking minds is one of the funnest. I genuinely recommend you look over this sometime and see what really happened, you could possibly learn a lot. Peace out dawg

[smh23]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

You listed them as similarities and dissimilarities at the same exact time, by stating that they are way more similar than most consider AND THAT MEANS SOMETHING. You stated that that matters - as in - it plays into an argument. Even if it’s not perfect. That’s what you were saying on the bottom of pg 4, as I understood[/quote]

Nope.

You’re wrong. provably wrong. And you’re confusing “as [you] understood” (which means nothing) with “as it was.”

None of the following can be disputed:
[b]

1. An argument from analogy–or simply an analogy–requires that two nonidentical subjects be analogically connected to each other by way of a list of shared attributes.

2. Two subjects can share a measure of “volatility,” or not. Neither can be entirely devoid of it since human interaction is necessarily a factor in the present case, so “volatility” can be shared or not shared only insofar as it exists in like or unlike degree degree.

3. Smh said that courts and universities do not share the attribute of “volatility” in like degree.

4. Therefore, smh did not make an argument from analogy.[/b]

Does smh believe that universities are closer to courts in degree of volatility than most people would readily assume?

Yes.

Does that mean that he believes analogy to be an apt or illustrative way of thinking about courts and universities?

No.

Does it mean that he argued from analogy when he mentioned both in the same post?

No. In fact, he has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that he didn’t do that. He has proven that he believes the attribute of “volatility” to be embodied by court and university to vastly different degrees and therefore that they do not share that attribute in a way that allows for analogy to even be considered. The same is true for each of the other attributes listed above. As I said a long time ago (and it hasn’t changed): an analogy between A and C cannot exist where the only listed attributes are B and D and A is B, ~D while C is ~B, D.

You can toss around all of the “shucks, I don’t know formal logic” piffle that you desire, it isn’t going to change the fact that you very willingly entered a debate expressly about logic. And when I walk circles around you, you can call me “slippery” all you like but please understand that these claims are entirely testable and all the funny letters and little squigglies I’ve been producing for hours now (the vast majority of which you’ve been ignoring with an impressive fortitude despite the fact that in doing so you took a serious beating)–they have very specific meanings and, taken as a whole, the meaning is: you were wrong.