Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Bradley Hook <bhook at kssb.net> wrote:

>
> Analogies are a fundamental mechanism for explanation and argumentation,
> and anyone who refuses to (or is incapable of) interpreting them is also
> refusing to (or incapable of) participating fully in a productive
> argument. While it may be that his analogies seem far fetched to some,
> this could be simply the result of an inability to interpret the
> material in an objective manner; it does not reduce the validity of his
> point. I do agree that he could have chosen better examples in some
> cases, but this is purely opinion.
>

You're being an apologist.   I'm sorry, but if you stretch out the
boundaries far enough _anything_ is a valid analogy.  Both Sol and myself
contain hydrogen.  Therefore when the sun gets spots it's like me getting
zits.  By your reasoning that's a "far fetched" but still valid analogy.
I'm sorry, but that's bunk.  You can argue that "valid" can be just about
anything, but if you stretch that concept that far then it becomes
worthless.  There is a limit to "valid".

There are some key words I used.  "Cogent".  "Rational".  "Reasoned".  While
those terms obviously can be very subjective when applied to analogies, what
we've been seeing on this list from Leo is clearly not even within those
loose boundaries.  He's obviously a bright person, but all he spews are
straw men, red herrings, and hyperbole - and thus discussions he's involved
in usually end up becoming a shouting match, as he repeatedly dips into the
bin of logical fallacies (hrm, was that ad hominem on my part?...).

His Paris Hilton argument is a classic straw man.  He uses her because most
people despise her, and takes a trivial relationship between otherwise
extremely dissimilar things and blows it up into a side-by-side
comparison.   It's the same silly thing you see on McCain's "celebrity"
adverts.   In this case, Paris Hilton is known primarily for her sex tape,
her name, her lack of shame, and her overexposure.  Her criminal problems
were just icing on the cake and fodder for the gossip-mill.  What's "wrong
with her" is not her disregard for the law - her problems are much much
deeper than that.  Thus comparing her with a complex issue involving
MILLIONS of people is flimsy.  If he weren't trying to use a straw man he
wouldn't have selected such an incendiary subject for his analogy.  As I
said, he's not stupid.

Anyhow, I'd like to take him seriously, as there are times when he has good
points.  However I find that all the good is being drowned in a sea of poor
reasoning and flimsy arguments.

Jeffrey.

P.S.  Yes, I lied.  I'm going to shut up about this thread now.  Please
respond me to me off-list if you want a further response.

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20080821/c50e9e22/attachment.htm>