Analogies are powerful instruments of discourse.

They allow people to separate the issue at hand from their own bias,

however the closed-minded among us will be incredulous towards the analogy if the conclusion implies that they are wrong.

If one compares the banking system to thievery the sheep will say

“But the thief is committing a crime!”.

It is true, the thief is committing a crime,

however, to say it is a crime when the thief does it

should it not follow that it is also a crime when the banker does?

 

 

 

You can instantly tell if someone has a functioning brain by presenting them an analogy.

If they start picking apart the analogy itself instead of the concept, you're dealing with a moron.

For example.

"Would you rather encounter a man or a bear in the woods"

If they ask why they are in the woods... moron.

If they start asking why the man is in the woods... moron.

If they start asking what type of man and bear... moron.

 

Faulty analogies are not faulty because of picking them apart.

They are faulty because the logic is not the same as the concept.

"A tomato is a botanical fruit but a culinary vegetable"

is a bad analogy for pro-transsexualism.

After all, everyone knows you don't put tomatos in a fruit salad.