Pets/Children & Chimps/Humans good or bad comparison?

[Marshalscienceguy]

Whenever you compare a person to any other species on the planet someone always seem to get offended. Now I do not mean when purposely using this as a an insult such as "I think you're a pig since you eat so much" but a genuine comparison. I do not see anything wrong in objectively pointing out similarities between certain creatures and if humans are not animals what are they? I have seen this comparison in two situations.

 

Its either applying pets to children and apes/chimps to people. Now if you compare a person to a chimp those against it might say "Are you saying I throw my own poop"? since they throw poop."

 

Another comparison I hear a lot is taking care of a pet is like taking care of a child. A child is your responsibility, whatever happens to them is considered your responsibility, you have to clean them, clean up after them, take care of them, feed them and give them somewhere to sleep. A dog(pet) is your responsibility, whatever they do or happens to them is your responsibility, you have to feed them, clean them(Until/unless they clean themselves but cats can clean themselves too), clean up after them, give them somewhere to sleep. Now people against this will say "Well you believe in child abuse and putting a child in a cage". I bet you would force me to feed my child from a dog bowl too wouldn't you"?

 

Are these comparisons themselves bad or is the idea its a bad comparison based on over-sensitivity?

Edited April 2, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[davidivad]

Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

 

this is a fallacy.

most people stop doing this after their first year of college (they teach you more effective ways to do things).

 

if they are using this tactic then they are using writing skills against you.

Edited April 3, 2014 by davidivad

[Marshalscienceguy]

Missing the point

Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion—but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

 

this is a fallacy.

most people stop doing this after their first year of college (they teach you more effective ways to do things).

 

if they are using this tactic then they are using writing skills against you.

So are you saying this comparison is flawed or the person being offended has a flawed argument?

[davidivad]

i mean that the reader knows the extent to your example.

i can reasonably establish that you would not put a kid in a cage.

i can however extend the logic beyond your intentions in order prove it false.

this can be tricky on such a forum so you need to be as literal as you can be.

people often masquerade such an argument by reason of logic.

the end result is that they are not being objective as required for good science.

 

both are wrong

the key lies in your objectivity.

 

quite often, if you feel trapped in an argument, the best way out is to ask more questions.

this informs you about how your reader thinks and likely how they will respond.

know your reader and be objective.

Edited April 3, 2014 by davidivad

[Marshalscienceguy]

i mean that the reader knows the extent to your example.

i can reasonably establish that you would not put a kid in a cage.

i can however extend the logic beyond your intentions in order prove it false.

this can be tricky on such a forum so you need to be as literal as you can be.

people often masquerade such an argument by reason of logic.

the end result is that they are not being objective as required for good science.

 

both are wrong

the key lies in your objectivity.

 

quite often, if you feel trapped in an argument, the best way out is to ask more questions.

this informs you about how your reader thinks and likely how they will respond.

know your reader and be objective.

The reason I ask since these both seemed like fair comparisons to me. I also seen both of these used a lot. The dog comparison I see most often when people who care for animals in some way are attempting to explain how to care for a pet using a child as an example. Than there always has to be someone who comes out of no where to yell at this person when that clearly wasn't meant to attack children but to present an explanation as how to deal with animals that made sense to someone who might not know anything about animals at all.

 

I wanted to know if making these statements themselves truly attacking children/people or if these people are just oversensitive for believing so? The Chimp/human comparison idea is often presented when we think of the idea that people possibly evolved from apes. Than people ask "Well do I throw poop too? I guess I must be a monkey right"? and get belligerent about it. The point of this seems to find a decent comparison when explaining something to people. I myself had used a cat to try to explain to someone how to use a computer. This was the only way they were able to actually understand it and I could see where people might use a comparison to make it easy for someone who just might not be understanding it the way its normally taught.

[davidivad]

you make a good argument.

in just got done swinging my proverbial stick at what seemed no more than a feeding frenzy today.

if you prepare the reader for your analogy, you have the advantage of also defining where it begins and ends.

example;

 

" humans are like monkeys in that aspect that monkeys use facial expressions."

 

"Yes, but humans don't throw poop so i do not see what you are saying,"

 

"this is not the extent i intended my comment to be used. do you have a better analogy that might fit with my line of reasoning?"

at this point they have the opportunity to contribute constructively or give an insult.

here they must take a position for you or against you.

forum rules dictate this kind of negativity.

read your forum rules.