Re: [Bulk] Re: Death penalty

> As would have a simple "maybe it isn't the perfect analogy" instead of
> accusing me of focusing on differences instead of similarities.
> And no I don’t see the contradiction and I don't see the similarities -
> there are no meaningful similarities between a woman who flirts with someone
> who is not her boyfriend/husband and a murderer.

Sure there are. They're both doing something that may hurt an innocent
party. They're both doing something they know is wrong. They're both
breaking an implicit contract (she, with her lover; he, with society).
Both activities entail unpleasant consequences if they're found out.
Both activities can result in the relief of pent-up frustrations, at
the expense of something greater. Both can be justified, given the
proper context.<

Oh, I thought we were talking about similarities that didn't involve gross moral 
equivocation.  Silly me.

And on your last one - when exactly can murder be justified?  If homicide were 
justified it wouldn't be murder.  From morally equivocating analogies to 
tautologies - we aren't getting very far.


>There are as many similarities (and dissimilarities) as you care to
see. The purpose of an analogy is to draw attention to a *specific*
similarity between two situations, and illuminate that particular
point by casting it in a *different* light. If analogies were intended
to exactly reproduce the original situation, there wouldn't be any
point in making them.<

So all analogies are equal?  You're right there is no point in making them.

Mike F. 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot