A bad one that makes no sense to begin with due to the aforementioned fundamental differences between the subjects, even leaving the obvious offensive potential aside. Might as well have been trying to make some kind of point about breathing by comparing it to making sandcastles.
Breathing is like making sandcastles. We learn it as kids and it stays with us for the rest of our lives.
There, what's the problem? The point of analogies is to isolate certain characteristics you then make a statement of. When you compare space to rubber you compare something that's utterly different and incomparable, but rubber's flexible, and so's space, and that's what you want to talk about.
Of course on closer examination you'll quickly realize that rubber is not, in fact, in any way like space. But that wasn't the point; the point was to illustrate a specific statement. Nothing more.
No, they are correct. The vegetarian analogy was flawed regardless of it could be considered offensive or not.
A better analogy would be as follows. Humans are omnivorous creatures since it is our nature that we can eat both meat and vegetable matter. If one then chooses to become vegetarian it does not change the fact that they are still an omnivore because they retain their fundamental underlying nature.
The same is true of being bi sexual which means that a person has a fundamental underlying sexual attraction to both sexes. Even if a bisexual woman then ended up in a monogamous relationship with a same sex partner it doesn't make them a lesbian. It makes them a bisexual that just happens to be choosing to date another woman instead of a guy. Although their behavior has changed their underlying nature has not.
last edited at Dec 18, 2018 12:54PM
