Search Results
6/27/2025, 9:41:19 AM
>>3791521
>Analogies only have to be similar in regards to a single point of comparison, not in every aspect. They certainly don't have to be "extremely similar," or similar in every regard.
The more vauge or dissimilar an analogy is, the worse it is and eventually it can even detract because it does the opposite. Like with idiotic chess example. It added NOTHING to the discussion and when your mongoloid ass wants to die on the hill of
>n-no my retarded attempt at """analogy""" was actually great!
over discussing the topic at hand you make it fucking clear you're an irrational close-minded idiot that has absolutely zero interest in challenging their ideas.
>"Her smile was like sunshine, brightening everyone's day."
That is not an rhetoric analogy for discussion, dumb fuck. It applies to inductive reasoning. Jesus fucking christ you're retarded.
In this context (inductive argumentation) analogies are used to take something complex someone has trouble understanding and recontextualize it with something they have a frame of reference for.
Instead YOU use it to feed your confirmation bias, as some "proof" that respeccing is bad because "look it would be terrible in this totally different scenario that isn't even remotely applicable 1:1 to the point where it isn't applicable at all!". As in, someone already having made up their mind with zero interest in challenging it. ie. a fucking close-minded idiot.
I'll use an example even an uncultured idiot like you have most likely seen, where a common analogy to describe folding space is by folding paper and making a hole in it. That is taking something complex and dumbing it down with an analogy to make it easier for laymen to understand it. In other words, the proper usage of an analogy in a discussion.
>>3791405
Read the above, you fucking mentally handicapped mongoloid and stop shitting up the thread with your close-minded shitposting.
>Analogies only have to be similar in regards to a single point of comparison, not in every aspect. They certainly don't have to be "extremely similar," or similar in every regard.
The more vauge or dissimilar an analogy is, the worse it is and eventually it can even detract because it does the opposite. Like with idiotic chess example. It added NOTHING to the discussion and when your mongoloid ass wants to die on the hill of
>n-no my retarded attempt at """analogy""" was actually great!
over discussing the topic at hand you make it fucking clear you're an irrational close-minded idiot that has absolutely zero interest in challenging their ideas.
>"Her smile was like sunshine, brightening everyone's day."
That is not an rhetoric analogy for discussion, dumb fuck. It applies to inductive reasoning. Jesus fucking christ you're retarded.
In this context (inductive argumentation) analogies are used to take something complex someone has trouble understanding and recontextualize it with something they have a frame of reference for.
Instead YOU use it to feed your confirmation bias, as some "proof" that respeccing is bad because "look it would be terrible in this totally different scenario that isn't even remotely applicable 1:1 to the point where it isn't applicable at all!". As in, someone already having made up their mind with zero interest in challenging it. ie. a fucking close-minded idiot.
I'll use an example even an uncultured idiot like you have most likely seen, where a common analogy to describe folding space is by folding paper and making a hole in it. That is taking something complex and dumbing it down with an analogy to make it easier for laymen to understand it. In other words, the proper usage of an analogy in a discussion.
>>3791405
Read the above, you fucking mentally handicapped mongoloid and stop shitting up the thread with your close-minded shitposting.
6/15/2025, 5:33:30 PM
Page 1