| |
| ▲ | eviks a day ago | parent [-] | | Read the definition of "analogy", its core lies beyond your simple misunderstanding of a "false/true statement". If the commonalities your suppose exist in your analogy don't really exist, it's a false analogy regardless of the fact that a true analogy would still not be an "exact equality". | | |
| ▲ | bensyverson a day ago | parent [-] | | I did not mean it to be a 1:1 analogy, but rather a similar situation in history. My contention was not "this is precisely like the introduction of the spreadsheet." It was a tangentially related comment wondering whether there was the same level of angst among accountants when their field was suddenly impacted by a new technology. hn commenters man | | |
| ▲ | eviks a day ago | parent [-] | | "hn commenters" indeed. Instead of addressing the substance of the criticism of your analogy you ventured into irrelevant (and incorrect) semantic tangent. Like you continue to do - I understand that it wasn't meant to be 1:1, but it doesn't impact the assessment that it's a very bad one because the things you think are common are not even close. |
|
|
|
