Faces of the fallen [Archive]

trumptman

09-29-2004, 09:53 PM

I think it is entirely worth it. While I don't want to belittle the people who have died at all or the numbers... more people will die from simply getting in a car and driving in 18 months in Minnesota, Mississippi, or Indiana. I'm not talking combined either, I'm talking individual states will each have over 1000 people die just from driving.

California will likely have over 1600 people die this year just from drunk driving and around 4200 die from traffic accidents overall.

Yet we would never dare ask if simply driving to work or driving with the family were worth it. The cause these folks are fighting for is much higher than simply driving to work, and they believe it is worth it, even if you don't.

Nick

audiopollution

09-29-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by mattjohndrow
i like how you gave us your thoughts on this, you know, original content...:???:

Unlike you?!

Hopefully more people find out about that webpage. The 'don't show the coffins' shit that the current administration enforces is just a pale effort to save their own backsides. Heaven forbid we humanize the US losses, right?

Bah.

bunge

09-29-2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
While I don't want to belittle the people who have died at all or the numbers... more people will die from simply getting in a car and driving in 18 months in Minnesota, Mississippi, or Indiana.

Why don't you do that as a per capita figure. How many traffic deaths out of how many drivers versus how many war deaths out of 140,000 troops.

And why is it OK that 1000+ troops died in a war that was 100% avoidable? The person that refused to avoid the war should be held accountable.

And how can you compare someone that chooses to drive with someone that didn't choose to go and fight in a war that was 100% avoidable?

trumptman

09-29-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by bunge
Why don't you do that as a per capita figure. How many traffic deaths out of how many drivers versus how many war deaths out of 140,000 troops.

And why is it OK that 1000+ troops died in a war that was 100% avoidable? The person that refused to avoid the war should be held accountable.

And how can you compare someone that chooses to drive with someone that didn't choose to go and fight in a war that was 100% avoidable?

If you can find a stat on total number of people driving, I'll be happy to do a per capita comparison. The total number of people who died last year in the U.S. simply from driving was 42,643 accord to the NHTSA. Yet no one seems to be questioning whether we should have cars or drive them.

Didn't choose to go out and fight? Last time I checked, our military was 100% volunteer.

If you aren't going to be honest, there really isn't a point.

Nick

shetline

09-29-2004, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I think it is entirely worth it. While I don't want to belittle the people who have died at all or the numbers... more people will die from simply getting in a car and driving in 18 months in Minnesota, Mississippi, or Indiana. I'm not talking combined either, I'm talking individual states will each have over 1000 people die just from driving.
140,000 troops. Over 1000 deaths so far. The odds of dying as a soldier in Iraq are approaching 1%.

If you include serious injuries -- lost limbs, brain damage, paralysis, blindness, deafness, severe burns, disfiguration -- the kinds of things that leave some people wondering if they'd be better off dead -- the odds of going to Iraq and ending up either dead or seriously injured must be getting up around 2-3%, as high as 1 out of 50 or even 1 out of 30.

How'd you like those odds placed on your own ass, sport? You still want to be an insenstive asshole and compare going to Iraq to driving your f*cking car?

Scott

09-29-2004, 10:32 PM

Here's some more faces of the fallen. Catch it at a theater near you.

- 275 sites have been discovered so far, containing 300,000 bodies
- 1.2 Million men, women and children have been excuted by Saddam's regime since 1979

Saddam's Mass Graves (http://www.medyaarts.com/mass_graves.htm)

It was all for nothing.

trumptman

09-29-2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by shetline
140,000 troops. Over 1000 deaths so far. The odds of dying as a soldier in Iraq are approaching 1%.

If you include serious injuries -- lost limbs, brain damage, paralysis, blindness, deafness, severe burns, disfiguration -- the kinds of things that leave some people wondering if they'd be better off dead -- the odds of going to Iraq and ending up either dead or seriously injured must be getting up around 2-3%, as high as 1 out of 50 or even 1 out of 30.

How'd you like those odds placed on your own ass, sport? You still want to be an insenstive asshole and compare going to Iraq to driving your f*cking car?

Listen prick. I'm not the one saying they died for nothing. That is reserved these other supposed compassionate people. People are questioning their deaths, I'm saying there are lots of other things in life where the numbers are higher and no one questions the actions or motives.

I'll gladly compare going to Iraq with driving a car because jerks like yourself try to take a number and somehow make it larger than it appears to be when considered in the context of the big picture. I can wish those people didn't die. But I can also know that about 1600 people are going to die just from drunk driving in the next year in California which comes out to about 2400 in 18 months. In fact I can hate suicide but about 16,000 people are going to shoot themselves this year as well.

There reality is that people like yourself and others are trying to EXPLOIT these deaths while claiming to care about them. That is the sickest and saddest thing of all.

You're sick and sad, got it sport.

Nick

midwinter

09-29-2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
I think it is entirely worth it. While I don't want to belittle the people who have died at all or the numbers... more people will die from simply getting in a car and driving in 18 months in Minnesota, Mississippi, or Indiana. I'm not talking combined either, I'm talking individual states will each have over 1000 people die just from driving.

California will likely have over 1600 people die this year just from drunk driving and around 4200 die from traffic accidents overall.

Yet we would never dare ask if simply driving to work or driving with the family were worth it. The cause these folks are fighting for is much higher than simply driving to work, and they believe it is worth it, even if you don't.

Nick

Jesus you people took the bait. I heard this talking point the other day on Hannity and I thought it was a dumb argument then, and I think it's a dumb argument now.

What did the 1000+ people who died driving their cars die for. Since you think the stat is so comparable it's worth noting, and since it's obviously an attempt to render as somehow minor the deaths in Iraq, we need to line up the equation: 1000 in Iraq dying for something :: 1000 in cars dying for...?

Finish that analogy for me.

johnq

09-29-2004, 11:22 PM

Oil :: Oil
Rich people :: Rich people
Bush/House of Saud :: Bush/House of Saud

It's the snake eating its tail.

Drive your kid to football practice in a Hummer
Your kid dies in a Hummer in Bagdad so moms have gasoline back home
Satan laughs
Bushes et al/Saudis OPEC et al get richer
Repeat

shetline

09-29-2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
There reality is that people like yourself and others are trying to EXPLOIT these deaths while claiming to care about them. That is the sickest and saddest thing of all.
As opposed to the healthy and happy attitudes which are responsible for causing all of those deaths and injuries on "our side", not to mention the much larger (and oddly, harder to find data about) Iraqi casualties?

So, let's see how your logic works:

1) I think all of those deaths were for a bad cause, and those responsible should, at a minimum, not be rewarded with re-election for causing them.

2) Since I feel that way, it's that becomes my cause.

3) Anything I say to support my own cause is automatically suspect, because, well, that's self-serving of me.

4) If I say anything regarding deaths to support my cause, that's using death in a self-serving way, therefore... EXPLOITATION!

5) Ergo... Everyone who thinks people anywhere are dying needlessly might as well not even bring up the subject, because there's no way to speak out against needless death without being exploitative.

Gee, I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

NaplesX

09-30-2004, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Jesus you people took the bait. I heard this talking point the other day on Hannity and I thought it was a dumb argument then, and I think it's a dumb argument now.

What did the 1000+ people who died driving their cars die for. Since you think the stat is so comparable it's worth noting, and since it's obviously an attempt to render as somehow minor the deaths in Iraq, we need to line up the equation: 1000 in Iraq dying for something :: 1000 in cars dying for...?

Finish that analogy for me. 99.9 percent of the people in Iraq, feel they are fighting for something worthwhile - their country, their family and not to even mention the Iraqi people and everyone's future.

People driving to work are doing that much for the same reasons minus the Iraqi people. But the big difference is that cars and fellow commuters are not rigged to kill them at a moments notice. A highway death is usually from driver error or drunk drivers. Another difference is that pretty much every other driver is also heading to work or whatever and is not aiming for you - they are aiming for some destination.

Another thing that bugs me about this whole thing... When bush landed on the aircraft carrier and stood below the infamous sign. All the propagandists jumped on that because they felt it was inappropriate since the war was not over. But now all of you that jumped on that bandwagon, now say the war was not worth it, despite it NOT BEING OVER. So it is OK now to declare it over or lost when it is still being fought? Or is it just OK because it's a democrat stance?

And since 1000 is the magic number in wars these days, where you declare it won or lost, radical islam had won 4 times over or more long before this war. Hence, the US had no business, as a defeated nation, taking on this latest war.

I am also confused how a small percentage of squawkers can tell the volunteer soldiers that what they are doing is not worth it.

Anyway...

trumptman

09-30-2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Jesus you people took the bait. I heard this talking point the other day on Hannity and I thought it was a dumb argument then, and I think it's a dumb argument now.

What did the 1000+ people who died driving their cars die for. Since you think the stat is so comparable it's worth noting, and since it's obviously an attempt to render as somehow minor the deaths in Iraq, we need to line up the equation: 1000 in Iraq dying for something :: 1000 in cars dying for...?

Finish that analogy for me.

They die simply because they believe the benefits of driving outway the possible risk of dying.

Some of the people who have died in Iraq were involved in private industry. They simply thought the large paycheck was worth the risk even of death. The people in the armed services, in addition to simply wanting to serve, obviously weighed the risks versus benefits and decided to sign up.

I mean you're talking to the guy who brings up the concept of the glass celler with men and how 97% of all work place deaths are men. Men who choose to receive higher pay in order to risk their own lives. I could definately see the point of 1,000 people being drafted into service, forced to serve and then ending up dead. But what these folks have done is exactly what you and I do, which is risk analysis and picking what we think is best and doing it.

Nick

bunge

09-30-2004, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
If you can find a stat on total number of people driving, I'll be happy to do a per capita comparison. The total number of people who died last year in the U.S. simply from driving was 42,643 accord to the NHTSA. Yet no one seems to be questioning whether we should have cars or drive them.

Didn't choose to go out and fight? Last time I checked, our military was 100% volunteer.

If you aren't going to be honest, there really isn't a point.

Nick

Since you can only lie to try and prove a point, how about you reverse the math and figure out what percentage of the overall population died from driving? We, as a group, can collectively decide if that percentage is roughly equivalent to the number of people that have died in Iraq of if it's so far out of the realm of comparison that we can only conclude that you are lying yet again.

Let's see...42K+ deaths, ~300,000,000 people...I think that would be 0.000142% of the overall population. If we pretend that only 5% of the overall population drives we can say that 0.0007107% of all drivers die. And you compare that to the roughly 1% of soldiers that die in Iraq.

Typical
Trumptman
Lie

Yes, the military is volunteer. No, people don't volunteer to go to war under false premises.

midwinter

09-30-2004, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by NaplesX
99.9 percent of the people in Iraq, feel they are fighting for something worthwhile - their country, their family and not to even mention the Iraqi people and everyone's future.

People driving to work are doing that much for the same reasons minus the Iraqi people. But the big difference is that cars and fellow commuters are not rigged to kill them at a moments notice. A highway death is usually from driver error or drunk drivers. Another difference is that pretty much every other driver is also heading to work or whatever and is not aiming for you - they are aiming for some destination.

Another thing that bugs me about this whole thing... When bush landed on the aircraft carrier and stood below the infamous sign. All the propagandists jumped on that because they felt it was inappropriate since the war was not over. But now all of you that jumped on that bandwagon, now say the war was not worth it, despite it NOT BEING OVER. So it is OK now to declare it over or lost when it is still being fought? Or is it just OK because it's a democrat stance?

And since 1000 is the magic number in wars these days, where you declare it won or lost, radical islam had won 4 times over or more long before this war. Hence, the US had no business, as a defeated nation, taking on this latest war.

I am also confused how a small percentage of squawkers can tell the volunteer soldiers that what they are doing is not worth it.

Anyway...

Did you just try to change the subject three times?

Finish the analogy Nick offered. Meaningless deaths in car accidents :: _____ deaths in Iraq.

midwinter

09-30-2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
They die simply because they believe the benefits of driving outway the possible risk of dying.

You're kidding, right? 1000+ people died of car accidents in America because they like to take a risk now and then :: 1000+ people died in Iraq. Finish the analogy, Nick. meaningless deaths in car accidents :: ______ deaths in Iraq.

As for the rest of your post. Let me get this straight. Are you saying, as I think you are, that the private contractors (about whom we're not talking, in the end) who died in Iraq died because they were either stupid or greedy?

trumptman

09-30-2004, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by bunge
Since you can only lie to try and prove a point, how about you reverse the math and figure out what percentage of the overall population died from driving? We, as a group, can collectively decide if that percentage is roughly equivalent to the number of people that have died in Iraq of if it's so far out of the realm of comparison that we can only conclude that you are lying yet again.

Let's see...42K+ deaths, ~300,000,000 people...I think that would be 0.000142% of the overall population. If we pretend that only 5% of the overall population drives we can say that 0.0007107% of all drivers die. And you compare that to the roughly 1% of soldiers that die in Iraq.

Typical
Trumptman
Lie

Yes, the military is volunteer. No, people don't volunteer to go to war under false premises.

Talk about a typical lie. 300 million. I suppose my five and three year old son are driving now. Your example would be as nonsensical as if I included our troops stationed at home and in Europe in an Iraq comparison.

So keep trying...

Nick

trumptman

09-30-2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Did you just try to change the subject three times?

Finish the analogy Nick offered. Meaningless deaths in car accidents :: _____ deaths in Iraq.

No I didn't try to change the subject, however the reality is that risk management is part of what we all do.

First I can't finish your analogy because I don't agree with the first part of it. I'm sure the people that died in the car accidents didn't think those deaths were meaningless. I'm sure the fact that we have the NHTSA, seatbelts, airbags, etc... is all an attempt to insure those "meaningless" deaths don't occur.

Now I offered an analogy, you changed it and then asked me to finish it. I said quite simply.

They die simply because they believe the benefits of driving outway the possible risk of dying.

To apply this to Iraq is easy.

They die simply because they believe the benefits of freedom outway the possible risk of dying.

As I said earlier, I am not the one calling Iraq a sham or fraud. I am not the one claiming these people have died for nothing or that their deaths are meaningless all while claiming I "support" them.

So don't take that word meaningless and ascribe it to me. In fact all it does is, again, show how people like yourself and Shawn claim to support the troops while, at the same time, not supporting what they do. As I mentioned in a previous post....

The cause these folks are fighting for is much higher than simply driving to work, and they believe it is worth it, even if you don't.

I never even claimed that the people driving to work were meaningless, just that the cause of our soldiers was higher than the cause of many of those driving to work. Driving to work to support yourself or a family is still a very worthy cause. It is a cause that outweighs the risks. I never claimed it was meaningless. Those are your words.

Nick

trumptman

09-30-2004, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Finish the analogy, Nick!

meaningless deaths in car accidents :: ______ deaths in Iraq.

(BTW, Midwinter is positively brilliant)

I guess you didn't take the out of court settlement?

:lol:
Nick

bunge

09-30-2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
Talk about a typical lie. 300 million. I suppose my five and three year old son are driving now. Your example would be as nonsensical as if I included our troops stationed at home and in Europe in an Iraq comparison.

So keep trying...

Nick

Is the 42k+ people that died in car accidents, or drivers that died in car accidents? You're so dishonest it's silly.

NaplesX

09-30-2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
No I didn't try to change the subject, however the reality is that risk management is part of what we all do.

First I can't finish your analogy because I don't agree with the first part of it. I'm sure the people that died in the car accidents didn't think those deaths were meaningless. I'm sure the fact that we have the NHTSA, seatbelts, airbags, etc... is all an attempt to insure those "meaningless" deaths don't occur.

Now I offered an analogy, you changed it and then asked me to finish it. I said quite simply.

They die simply because they believe the benefits of driving outway the possible risk of dying.

To apply this to Iraq is easy.

They die simply because they believe the benefits of freedom outway the possible risk of dying.

As I said earlier, I am not the one calling Iraq a sham or fraud. I am not the one claiming these people have died for nothing or that their deaths are meaningless all while claiming I "support" them.

So don't take that word meaningless and ascribe it to me. In fact all it does is, again, show how people like yourself and Shawn claim to support the troops while, at the same time, not supporting what they do. As I mentioned in a previous post....

I never even claimed that the people driving to work were meaningless, just that the cause of our soldiers was higher than the cause of many of those driving to work. Driving to work to support yourself or a family is still a very worthy cause. It is a cause that outweighs the risks. I never claimed it was meaningless. Those are your words.

Nick And to add to that, the same people that say they support the troops, disparage the commander and all the higher-ups any chance they get.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

trumptman

09-30-2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by bunge
Is the 42k+ people that died in car accidents, or drivers that died in car accidents? You're so dishonest it's silly.

Label, label, label away. Your position is so desperate that you have no other choice.

Can you prove all 300 million people ride in cars? Of course not and it doesn't matter if they are passengers or drivers. There are people who don't even own or use cars.

Just admit you were lumping in people and lying in an attempt to make your point. BTW, your math also sucks because the figures for drivers are for a year and the figures for Iraq deaths are for 18 months.

But, I'm sure you'll keep finding ways of twisting them to make yourself happy.

Nick

jamac

09-30-2004, 11:37 AM

People choose to drive cars, fly planes and cross the street. People also choose to be in the army (at least for now). For every US soldier about 10 Iraqi civilians have died but hardly any Iraqi soldiers. They are still out there. In the end we will find that Saddam and his buddies have outsmarted us. Saddam is not only a person, he is an attitude and still in power.

Saddam: killed 0 US citizens
Bush: killed 1200 injured 8000.

Saddam for president!! He much easier on us.

NaplesX

09-30-2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by jamac
People choose to drive cars, fly planes and cross the street. People also choose to be in the army (at least for now). For every US soldier about 10 Iraqi civilians have died but hardly any Iraqi soldiers. They are still out there. In the end we will find that Saddam and his buddies have outsmarted us. Saddam is not only a person, he is an attitude and still in power.

Saddam: killed 0 US citizens
Bush: killed 1200 injured 8000.

Saddam for president!! He much easier on us. Yeh, OK.

Stick with that!

Define civilians. Define who is killing said civilians. I think you are spinningt, no I know you are spinning.

Do the words "Hey Kool-Aid" meen anything to you?

midwinter

09-30-2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Now I offered an analogy, you changed it and then asked me to finish it. I said quite simply.

They die simply because they believe the benefits of driving outway the possible risk of dying.

Your analogy is inaccurate and ignores the simple fact that the soldiers in Iraq are doing more than driving cars around. They are there for a reason. They are doing whatever they are doing for a cause. To compare that to driving an automobile begs the question.

You've tried to answer it by telling me why people drive cars. But that's not the answer. We're comparing, according to your analogy, deaths to deaths. I asked you what the people who died in their cars died for.

So don't take that word meaningless and ascribe it to me. In fact all it does is, again, show how people like yourself and Shawn claim to support the troops while, at the same time, not supporting what they do.

Don't be an asshole. I'm not being an asshole. I'm asking you to flesh out the analogy you provided in a way that makes sense.

And I never claimed I supported the troops.

I never even claimed that the people driving to work were meaningless, just that the cause of our soldiers was higher than the cause of many of those driving to work. Driving to work to support yourself or a family is still a very worthy cause. It is a cause that outweighs the risks. I never claimed it was meaningless. Those are your words.

OK, then. Flesh it out for me, still. For what did the people who died in their cars die? :: for what are the people dying in Iraq dying?

NaplesX

09-30-2004, 11:54 AM

trumptman

09-30-2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Your analogy is inaccurate and ignores the simple fact that the soldiers in Iraq are doing more than driving cars around. They are there for a reason. They are doing whatever they are doing for a cause. To compare that to driving an automobile begs the question.

You've tried to answer it by telling me why people drive cars. But that's not the answer. We're comparing, according to your analogy, deaths to deaths. I asked you what the people who died in their cars died for.

Don't be an asshole. I'm not being an asshole. I'm asking you to flesh out the analogy you provided in a way that makes sense.

And I never claimed I supported the troops.

OK, then. Flesh it out for me, still. For what did the people who died in their cars die? :: for what are the people dying in Iraq dying?

My analogy is 100% accurate. It is so accurate I don't even mind putting it up against the professional opinion of a professor of English such as yourself. Analogies are showing a similarity in relationship between things that are otherwise dissimilar. I even stated the relationship that occurs between the dissimilar items. I fully fleshed it out. The relationship is benefits vs. risk.

Now you go on to say two different things, you say that I am comparing death to death (how they died driving vs. fighting) and then ask me why each died. Again, I stated that quite plainly. They died because they believed the benefits of using their cars to get to work and other destinations outweighed the risk of dying. The soldiers have died because the believe the benefits of Saddam being out of power and Iraq being a democracy outweigh the risk of themselves dying.

I really don't see how much more plain I can make it. I feel like I have been fully honest. I've explained that I understand the definition and even explained what you should already know, that is about the similarity of the relationship between items. (Example tall is to short as skinny is the fat, relationship opposites) You complain that soldiers do more than drive, but the reality is that analogies work via their relationship to the items being compared. I can't complain that tall isn't the same as skinny. It is the word relationship that is the same.

I've used the exact same wording in the exact same statements for both instances. It makes sense. There is no twisting or awkwardness of understanding... nothing.

So if you have any problems with it, you will have to flush it out since I feel I have been fully honest and done my part.

Nick

Northgate

09-30-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
And to add to that, the same people that say they support the troops, disparage the commander and all the higher-ups any chance they get.

Actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Were you and your ilk even around during the unconstitutional Clinton impeachment? Wow. It boggles the mind how short memories are around here.

What comes around goes around!

Northgate

09-30-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
99.9 percent of the people in Iraq, feel they are fighting for something worthwhile - their country, their family and not to even mention the Iraqi people and everyone's future.

Anyway...

Hey, did you know that 86.74% of all statistics are made up on the spot? :lol:

Your false sweeping generalization certainly doesn't square with Farnaz Fissihi, a Wall Street Journal reporter, who decided to come clean:

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.
...
The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months
while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the
government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

So the question begs...are you joking?

midwinter

09-30-2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think you are being a word whore.

I think you mean "word snob."

But that is just my opinion.

Indeed.

I understood his posts with ease, and I'm an Idiot. His first post said enough for my 11 year old to understand.

I understood his post, too. I'm arguing with him about the accuracy of his analogy.

You're just baiting him as make yourself appear like you are smarter than him. In reality, though, you are just exhibiting your sophomoric mentality.

Don't psychoanalyze me unless you want me to do the same to you, what with your constant cries of "I'm an idiot" and "I may not be as smart as the rest of you..." I've never been uncivil with you on these boards. I've disagreed with you quite a bit, but I've always remained civil, even wishing you well when the hurricane(s) hit.

Don't be an asshole.

bunge

09-30-2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
Label, label, label away. Your position is so desperate that you have no other choice.

You're a terrible loser. Do the math yourself then and you'll see that my point still stands. Anyone with half a brain can see it. You're embarassed because you compared fighting in a war to driving a car. At least you should be embarassed.

midwinter

09-30-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by trumptman
My analogy is 100% accurate.

There is no such thing. There is always a slippage of meaning/representation in an analogy. The only way for an analogy to be "100% correct" is to compare X :: X or Y :: Y.

It is so accurate I don't even mind putting it up against the professional opinion of a professor of English such as yourself.

My training isn't in symbolic logic; it's in c18 and c19 British literature, so I don't know what good pointing out what I do for a living does. [edit: fixed my comma splice]

Analogies are showing a similarity in relationship between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

Nice quote from dictionary.com. And you're right, but what is important in argumentation by analogy (which is what you usually try to do) is that the relationship be similar. This is why I've been on you to flesh out that analogy, since otherwise we could simply say that 1000 people died from swallowing their own feet :: 1000 soldiers dying in Iraq.

Now you go on to say two different things, you say that I am comparing death to death (how they died driving vs. fighting) and then ask me why each died.

No. I asked you to explain what each died for. That is what the relationship requires if the analogy is to be "100% correct." People who die in car wrecks do not die for a cause, usually.

Again, I stated that quite plainly. They died because they believed the benefits of using their cars to get to work and other destinations outweighed the risk of dying. The soldiers have died because the believe the benefits of Saddam being out of power and Iraq being a democracy outweigh the risk of themselves dying.

And this is where the analogy breaks down. You're arguing not some vague notion of risk vs. rewards. You're suggesting that the extremely low risk of driving a car is analogous to the extremely high risk of dying in Iraq. That's why I'm after you to flesh out the analogy. In addition to that, the soldiers in Iraq are dying for a cause, whereas the people dying in car crashes, I imagine, are not. Remember, an analogy requires that the dissimilar things be similar in relationship. Otherwise you could just point out that the number of people who ate cheese last year is analogous to the number of people who died in Iraq. In short, death, in and of itself, does not make the relationship similar.

So if you have any problems with it, you will have to flush it out since I feel I have been fully honest and done my part.

I hope this helps.