Newbie2TLS wrote:It’s a bad analogy altogether. An analogy should have similarity in the principle and the underlying facts to which the principle is applied. Sure, the analogy used had a similar principle (I.e., pointing to other bad situations to negate someone’s sadness of their own situation), but it was nowhere similar to the underlying facts, which is what I keep pointing out. That’s like saying “don’t tell me millionaire executives shouldn’t pay themselves additional bonuses this year because I can’t tell people living on minimum wage to not want to raise the minimum wage.” It’s clear that the principle is similar (I.e., don’t tell people it’s bad to ask or get paid more money), but the underlying facts crumble the analogy. Of course there’s a difference between not wanting someone already a multi-millionaire from hoarding even more wealth and telling a minimum wage worker they shouldn’t do it. Same thing here. There’s a huge difference between telling someone suffering from abuse about shittier situations to get them to not be sad over theirs and telling someone about shittier situations to get them not to feel bad about a temporary, slight salary cut. The only way you somehow don’t see how bad this analogy really is, is if you really don’t know how analogies work or you actually don’t see that much of a difference between abuse and a temporary, small salary cut. Btw, the reason we didn’t shit on the lawyer in court is we assumed, for his sake, that he didn’t know how analogies worked, and not the much worse situation, that he was such a shitty person to somehow think the underlying facts were similar enough to analogize.
It's a bad analogy if your goal is to point to precedent in order to convince a judge to issue a binding ruling in your favor, fair. But that's not the goal here; I believe the original poster's goal was simply to illustrate the underlying principle without putting thought into pointing to a factually analogous precedent.
If he had said "it's bad to tell people sad about salary cuts to stop whining because it's bad to tell abuse victims to stop whining," then sure, that's a terrible argument. I read his post as "telling people experiencing a bad thing to not be sad because others have it worse is bad," and here is an extreme illustrative example, which I think given the context that this is an internet chat board (and not a fed court), is a more reasonable reading.
Literally nobody here thinks a biglaw 20k or whatever salary cut is remotely comparable to emotional abuse, so you're just criticizing a nonexistent thought.
Lamarvelous wrote:Can this not be moved to some sub-thread on arguing over inane nonsense? I can’t even remember which side is which.
What else are we supposed to do while the over-taxed firm VPNs spend about 10 mins to upload/download a 300 page doc. It's a board for lawyers. We're going to quibble over this stuff.