You realize that making an analogy doesn't make your argument correct, right? And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance. I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.

▲

lotsofpulp 2 days ago | parent [-]

ta8645 did not make an analogy, nor did they use it to support an argument.

They posited that a similar series of events happen before, and predicted they will happen again.

▲

pessimizer 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why, pray tell, would a similar series of events be relevant to a completely different series of events except as analogy? Let me use an extremely close analogy to illustrate:

Imagine someone shot a basketball, and it didn't go into the hoop. Why would telling a story about somebody else who once shot a basketball which failed to go into the hoop be helpful or relevant?

▲

cgriswald 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your extremely close analogy gets to the crux of why people are disagreeing here: It doesn’t have to be analogy. You can be pointing out an equivalence.

▲

therobots927 2 days ago | parent [-]

Regardless this was my whole point. The original point was a fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

▲

cgriswald 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'd be interested in your reason for thinking so but I think you can see your supporting argument is not compelling:

> And comparing digging through the ground to human thought and creativity is an odd mix of self debasement and arrogance.

> I'm guessing there is an unspoken financial incentive guiding your point of view.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

therobots927 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's the definition of using an analogy to support an argument.