Analogy

[avevale_intelligencer]

From time to time, I may post here about how much I dislike people who push into queues. I do. I think they are rude and overbearing. I wish they would not do it. And it may be true that some of these pushers-in prefer coffee to tea, a preference I do not share, but to which I have no objection.

But suppose I did. And suppose I posted about how stupid those people were to choose the bitter blackness of coffee over the smooth mellowness of tea, and when someone queried my choice of words, I shifted my ground immediately and started accusing all coffee-drinkers of queue-jumping?

Thus, from time to time, I may post about how much I dislike greedy, ambitious, dishonest politicians, heads of large corporations, criminals and especially murderers of all kinds, and all people who wield excessive power and who use it for evil. And it may be true--indeed, it is true--that some of those people and corporations claim to be religious, a worldview I do not share, but to which I have no objection.

But even if I had as rooted an objection to religion on rational grounds as some of my friends, I would consider it unacceptable behaviour on my own part to respond to a query on that subject by shifting my ground and accusing all religious people of complicity in the immoral acts of politicians, merchants, monarchs and warmongers. It seems to me to be a matter of courtesy to answer the question that is asked, or to admit that no answer presents itself if such be the case.

NOTE. --I am not comparing religious view to choice of beverage, or queue-jumping to murder, or any such thing. The only relevant comparison in the analogy is that the two things are in each case completely unrelated, and in fact occur independently of each other. And the reason why I am writing this when I should be packing is to point out, YET AGAIN, that trying, by repeatedly derailing the discussion, to hijack the moral indignation which you and I both rightly feel about thing A and fasten it to thing B, to which you object on totally different grounds and I do not...

...as in

You; "The Bible is fiction."
Me: "Not entirely, surely."
You: "How dare you defend the massacre of all those innocent people in the Holy Land! MONSTER!!!"

(I simplify to save space, but it happened twice yesterday)

...is lazy, and less than honest, and since I can see perfectly well what is happening, does not exactly incline me to change my mind about thing B. I have more than enough real stuff to feel guilty about, and I'm learning to recognise the fake stuff when it's fired at me.

Just so you know. I don't want to change your mind. I just wish, if you are one of those who do this, that you would clean up your act.

Comments

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

The problem with this analogy is that the queue-jumpers very rarely in my experience try to justify their queue-jumping by saying that they drink coffee.

Sadly, quite a lot of people try to justify various appalling acts of cruelty and violence by claiming that some deity or other (by means of a book or otherwise), told them to do it. If they themselves insist on the connection, I see no reason not to use it as part of an argument.

This does not of course mean that the logic has to be spread to all cases, or to be used in reverse: there are people who do appalling things without that particular excuse, there are people who listen to what they claim to be the same deities and read the same books without finding any reason to do the same things (or, possibly, hearing the instructions and knowing better than to obey them).

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

"The problem with this analogy is that the queue-jumpers very rarely in my experience try to justify their queue-jumping by saying that they drink coffee. "

Even if they did, would that be any grounds (no pun intended) to tar all coffee drinkers with the same brush? Especially if it is pointed out to you that some of the people who shouted *HEY!* when the coffee drinker barged in are also coffee drinkers?

You are clearly aware that the answer is "no", since your final paragraph, in fact, is *exactly* the point that Zander is making.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

It may well have been the point he intended to make, but he then overstated it by the unfortunate analogy. Coffee drinkers do not use their habit as an excuse for bad behaviour. (Some) religious types do. Tarring with the same brush is obviously bad - does that really need either repetition or discussion? No, so I didn't give it either. But tarring of coffee drinkers isn't even possible, hence the analogy being inappropriate.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

So you'd accept the analogy/parallel if some coffee drinkers pushed into line saying "I have to get to the front of the queue, my coffee addiction means I can't wait, and if you tea drinkers knew what it was like to be jonesing for the java, you'd give up your place and let me through"

:-)

(I should be packing, but instead I have to be at work today, so taking a quick lunchtime LJ break!)

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Yes, I would. But (like I said) as far as I'm aware, they don't - certainly not enough for it to be noticeable.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

Most Muslims aren't terrorists, most Christians aren't blowing up abortion clinics, most Jews aren't shooting Palestinians ...

... and most religions actively advocate loving your neighbour, living in peace and harmony etc.

... some people find excuses to do the most horrific things, whether it is for religious, or financial, or ideological reasons ...

... and most of us don't.

It appears the human psyche has some need to divide people into "them" and "us", and to have to stress how "us" is better, and "them" is worse ... whether that's religion, football teams, nationalities, skin colour, or which end of a boiled egg to open ...

... the answer is not to divide people into "us" (who are rational and don't divide people into two groups) and "them" (who are obviously all filled with hatred or envy that they are not us ...) ... as that's the question ... I'm not sure what the answer is, but apportioning blame based on them not being us, doesn't seem particularly productive.

I hope I'm not being too antagonistic with this, as that wasn't my intention ... if so, I apologise.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

"Most", yes. What does "most" have to do with an analogy where it isn't "most" who are innocent, it's "all"?
No, if one really wants to re-hash this extremely obvious "argument" at all (and I don't see any reason to do so), then a different analogy is needed. It's quite hard to think of another, but....

How about the people who blame their own inability to spell on the fact that they didn't go to university? They apparently think the reasoning is valid, despite learning to spell being something one does about a decade before university is an option. The tarring would then be claiming that all non-graduates are proud of being unable to spell - also obvious nonsense - and that all graduates can spell - if only!

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

You do know that analogies are always suspect (just like generalisations are *always* wrong ... grin!)

Nope, your suggested analogy is just too confusing.

I'm not sure what point you're making, and without wanting to sound too rude ... I have other things to put my energy into that are more pressing at the moment.

I can tell you're wound up about this, so I'll just let it drop, if that's ok with you?

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Not wound up, just pointing out that the coffee analogy doesn't work, and wondering why you keep changing the subject away from that.

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

It's not my analogy.

And you've pointed out one place it doesn't work, and I'm saying that analogies are hardly ever perfect.

It's like a jar of pickles ... (grin!)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

As I said. "The only relevant comparison in the analogy is that the two things are in each case completely unrelated, and in fact occur independently of each other." Whether the coffee drinkers try to justify their queue barging by claiming to be addicts (and coffee drinkers certainly do talk about their drink of choice in those terms) or any other caffeine-related excuse is irrelevant, just as is any attempted justification, religious or otherwise, for female genital mutilation, "honour killing," compulsory transvaginal ultrasounds or any other atrocity.

And the fact that "tarring with the same brush is obviously bad" does merit further restatement, because it is still going on ("Religion Poisons Everything"). As long as it continues, it will need to be talked about.

All history is part fiction

[helen mccarthy (from livejournal.com)]

Isn't it? because in the act of writing the writer selects certain facts, emphasises this, marginalises that, reduces actions to footnotes. Even news is part fiction because true objectivity is difficult for humans. I'd like people to stop beating themselves and others up about it, but that involves admitting our own total lack of agency and omniscience.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

All of which are quite legitimate beefs except for two problems.

"The bible contains directives of appalling cruelty, issued by the character referred to as 'God'" is not a good reason for believing everything in the bible is false, including the ostensibly historical parts.

It is, however a good reason for believing that the bible is not a reliable source of goodness, which is the argument this observation is *usually* used to support.

And finally, religious people are, in my experience, at least as prone to derailing questions of truth or falsity into accusations of atrocity as non-religious ones. Meaning the vast majority of well-meaning people on both sides don't do it at all, but when it happens, it certainly happens on the religious side too.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

Whether the topic is about religion, line-cutters, or whatever - it's inevitable that there will always be at least two who engage in emotional and psychological barrage of one another and compel those on either side to join them. In such times you can jump in and add your two cents which will be attacked (by both those who disagree with you and those you agree with but insist you don't really understand their position) or you can close the page and move on to something more important. That's not going to change because people who do that just don't see that they're doing that. What you can do, though, is recognize when the point where discussion becomes debate and choose whether or not to join in.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

Me, from elseweb-
"I finally figured out that what I really don't like are fundamentalists of any stripe. Religious, atheist, feminist, whatever, they're the ones who think they are not only absolutely right, but it is their duty to inform people that they are wrong, and doing so in a demeaning way is perfectly OK, usually under the guise of "But they're so ignorant!" or "But they were mean to us first!" Treating people like crap because they don't think the way you do just makes you a jerk."

[howeird]

There is one case which I think comes closer to being accurate than the queue-jumper = coffee drinker, and that is the cigarette smoker = generally inconsiderate. Smoking is a habit, unlike coffee drinking, which can harm not only the smoker but those around her, which makes it more of "it's all about me" than coffee drinking. Perhaps more queue-jumpers are smokers than merely coffee drinkers.

There are smokers who try to not hang around doorways polluting the air, and smokers who don't litter, but I think they are in the minority.