Someone comes into a graffiti subreddit and bashes graffiti. Says that "[graffiti writers] should be hung . . . and beaten with baseball bats." (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
96 ups - 26 downs = 70 votes
140 comments submitted at 14:02:42 on Nov 11, 2013 by RectalFire
>It is vandalism. Who gives a shit what it says. Find the little fucktard that did it and make him/her/it lick the shit off until it is clean.
I completely agree, although that may not be the best subreddit to say such things. But hey, more drama for us.
> I completely agree
Do you? I never thought much about it because I don't live in a dense urban area, but after seeing the documentary Beautiful Losers I was pretty pro just because so much great art has come out of graffiti - Banksy is the best known, but there are lots of them (Barry McGee, Steve Powers, Margaret Kilgallen, Chris Johanson, Basquiat, to name a few).
Edit: Wow, this comment has 99 children. I've seriously gotten into some serious throw downs in SRSs and never been this high. Usually I know when I'm getting into something controversial, but in this case, I seriously did not realize people felt this strongly about graffiti. As I said in the thread elsewhere, I live in a college/ski/artist town and we have graffiti, but only the good kind - everyone likes it, city leaves it up. I have tried to say throughout that I recognize I might feel differently about it if I lived elsewhere and had a different experience, but given my experience with it, I seriously had no idea people felt this strongly about it (I also thought reddit was more pro-Banksy, not that I was paying that close of attention, it was just a general impression). Anyway, TIL.
Yeah, and nazi research into hypothermia is still used to this day to save dozens of lives a year. Doesn't mean nazi medical research is ok.
You went full-on Godwin about graffiti? C'mon now.
You'd rather attack the analogy than think about what it means? C'mon now.
Graffiti compared to Nazi medical research on human subjects? Yes, I'll attack that analogy.
Something negative that sometimes had positive effects being compared to something negative that sometimes has positive effects? yeah, I'll point out you're not interested in actually discussing this.
The degree of negativity really matters to the strength of the analogy.
no it doesn't, that's the whole point of an analogy
Well, you're correct that analogies always contain some dissimilarity (otherwise they'd be identical), but what makes an analogy weak or strong is the degree of similarity/dissimilarity. So the fact that dissimilarity exists is a given, but the degree of similarity/dissimilarity is precisely what makes an analogy weak or strong. And look, I now realize you all hate graffiti (didn't know it was such a touchy subject), but I'm not wrong about analogies here. Just a sec and I'll go get you a link that says exactly what I just said.
Edit: [Link.] (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/)
> Weak Analogy Explanation: Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too. An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough.
The classic example of this are Hitler/Nazi comparisons, hence Godwin's Law. I personally don't think graffiti = Nazi medical experimentation on live human subjects. But it does appear reddit may believe graffiti is literally Hitler.
so you aren't interested in thinking about it. Have a great day.
Oh I thought about it. I concluded it's a bad analogy.