Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5540170" data-attributes="member: 2067">Actually, I'm demonstrating the absurdity of relying on rarity as the sole criteria for if there is a "problem" or not. The OP postulated that the reason they don't have a problem with CompoundWord monsters was because such things weren't actually very common, and my goal was to show that this logic is faulty by an analogy with another thing that is uncommon, and seeing if the fact that it was rare made it not a problem.I chose murder, because that illustrates the absurdity of the position in a way that, say, "Getting hit by lightning" or "getting Mono" doesn't as much, and yet it is less hyperbolic than, say, "Genocide," or "The heat death of the universe."Note that, because of the use of a comparison, none of these things are being equated. They share one similarity: They are rare things that are also problems, despite the fact that they are rare. Thus, the OP's central point -- CompoundWord monsters are rare, and therefore, should not be a problem -- is undermined, since rare things are problems even though they are rare. Only if they missed my central point: Rare things are problems even though they are rare (as demonstrated by the fact that murders are problems, even though they are fairly rare). It is a small part, but that's how we demonstrate the absurdity of relying on one feature (in this instance, rarity) to determine if someone should have a problem. If this is not true in all instances, it cannot be a good way of determining if someone "should" have a problem. I understand that not everyone reading my post is familiar with the use of analogy contained there, so missing the point is understandable. Not everybody has English as a first language, not everybody readily understands analogy, not everyone can easily think in metaphor. So I don't mind clarifying. But I do think I've certainly re-iterated the point enough by now for it to be pretty clear. Rather than trying to find fault with my analogy and winning Internet Bonus Points for "calling me on it," it might be more constructive to discuss the actual point, assuming you understand it, rather than trying to "win" by discrediting me.</blockquote>

Verification