Analogue, you see, isn’t supposed to be 1-1 recreation of the thing we’re talking about. It’s an instrument that suppose to focus on one aspect of the phenomenon, exaggerate it, divorce it from the original connotations so it’s easier to talk about the aspect itself, without being emotionally attached to the whole picture. “But in this other aspect it’s not like the original” therefore isn’t a rebuttal of the argument. It’s like saying that an architectural model of the center for kids that can’t read good is stupid because it’s too small and kids can’t actually enter the building.
Except both their parents were ‘bankers’. As were yours and mine. And our all grandparents. Indeed, every single predecessor, ever.
That’s where it falls down, regardless of how one might feel about parenthood. It’s just not a very good analogy.
This is absolutely not relevant in context of this analogy.
How so?
Analogue, you see, isn’t supposed to be 1-1 recreation of the thing we’re talking about. It’s an instrument that suppose to focus on one aspect of the phenomenon, exaggerate it, divorce it from the original connotations so it’s easier to talk about the aspect itself, without being emotionally attached to the whole picture. “But in this other aspect it’s not like the original” therefore isn’t a rebuttal of the argument. It’s like saying that an architectural model of the center for kids that can’t read good is stupid because it’s too small and kids can’t actually enter the building.
Thanks, I know what an analogy is. This is just a poor one that doesn’t hold up, in my opinion.