*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point.

That's one interpretation I guess.

I basically was not allowing that.

I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison that made no sense rather than a convenient analogy with the first human rights abuse that came to mind because it seemed like a good way to discredit me.

Further, I'm guessing that the fact it's obvious that such a comparison would be wrong didn't dissuade you from ascribing it to me because you're against 'libs' in general and it struck you as as a good opportunity to take a shot at one.

Either that or you really are just learning today the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.

[OngBonga]

That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

Though I am aware that these two words do mean different things, you're wrong to say that different words always mean different things.

For example, I have used two words recently which mean exactly the same thing... "exaggerate" and "overstate".

[Poopadoop]

you would be wrong to say that different words always mean different things. But you didn't say that, so I'm sorry, I'm just talking shit here.

fyp

[OngBonga]

fyp

You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.

But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.

It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.

However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.

They're both bad analogies.

If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?

I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.

[Poopadoop]

You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.

No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary. If you want to be a pedant, perhaps I should have elaborated with 'and the entry for analogy does not simply say 'see comparison'.'

It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.

lol, give it up.

They're both bad analogies.

What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?

I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.

yeah but 6000 posts is less than 6 million jews, so it's ok.

[OngBonga]

No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary.

You said it's why they have different entries in the dictionary. Here...

That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

[Poopadoop]

You said it's why they have different entries in the dictionary. Here...

I said 'distinct' meaning distinguishable - i.e. not simply 'see comparison'.

Fuck I wish people would spend as much time using a dicitonary as they do arguing about what words mean. There's no shame in it, honestly. I consult dictionaries all the time.

[Poopadoop]

I mean fair enough I gave you too much credit for knowing what a logical analogy was, instead of assuming you thought all analogies required a direct comparison (which also isn't true, but is a more common misunderstanding of the word).

But even once I explained how it was a logical analogy you still tried to argue it was a bad comparison, like somehow logical analogy and direct comparison are interchangeable terms.

[Poopadoop]

So let me walk you through this particular logically valid analogy again.

Trump bad: other recent presidents worse (your argument) is logically analagous to 2 million dead: 6 million dead, and to stealing 5 marbles: stealing 10 marbles, and for that matter, to proton: universe.

The problems with this line of arguments are twofold: First, you haven't provided a convincing argument for your premise 'other recent presidents worse', you just linked a Wiki page with some wars listed on it, most of which Trump is still involved in afaik. Granted, asking you to support a premise of your argument is a fool's errand, but that doesn't mean your premises are true by default.

Second, the conclusion you expect to be drawn from 'Trump bad: other recent presidents worse', assuming the latter is true, is unclear. Assuming you agree that 2 million dead people would also be bad, but not as bad as 6 million dead, the logical conclusion seems to be that 'Trump still bad'.

Or are you positing that this argument, assuming the premises are accurate, actually supports the conclusion that Trump is therefore a good POTUS? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow.