|
|
Are they an analogy or notVictory is like gaining trust; hard to earn, but you also have to put some effort in.
Victory is not also about winning; it's also about changing, as one cannot progress without change. Victory is not always about winning; it's also about how you are determined to succeed so therefore determination is like a soldier; to survive a conflict, you must persevere to continue. |
| asked on Saturday, Mar 26, 2016 12:34:24 AM by Math | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
Yeah, they're analogies since they resort to metaphors to explain victory.
|
| answered on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2016 11:51:40 AM by Jackster |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
No, sorry, these statements are not ‘analogies’ to anything. They are simply alternative plausible interpretations of alleged tangential benefits to either achieving, coming close to, or attempting to achieve (but failing to achieve) “Victory”. The most common definitions of ‘Victory’ assert “the success or act of defeating an opponent or enemy.” While this definition is clear cut, the ramifications of failing to achieve this threshold in whole or in part may still yield positive benefits, which are less clear, thus the alternative assertions, which may, or may not be either wholly correct or mutually exclusive. However, they are not analogous to anything contained herein.
|
| answered on Thursday, Aug 25, 2016 12:55:25 AM by modelerr |
Comments |
|
| |
|
|
They are analogies; they're just not very good ones. Analogies are almost always subjective, so to claim it is logically fallacious is beside the point. If the analogy isn't clear, it may help to ask the speaker to explain how the items he discusses are analogous. Then we can start discussing fallacious arguments.
My son likes to come up with analogies for nearly everything. Half of the time, my wife and I can't figure out what he means. |
| answered on Thursday, Aug 25, 2016 08:58:49 AM by Jim |
Comments |
|
| |