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.