Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she 'doesn't even think about' Donald Trump anymore...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-so-far-ahead-in-polls-that-doesnt-even-think-abo/
Biden campaign manager VERY worried.....
- Thread starter Stone
- Start date
Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she 'doesn't even think about' Donald Trump anymore...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-so-far-ahead-in-polls-that-doesnt-even-think-abo/
You think presidential politics are the same as silly athletic contests?
No they haven’t, they have heard that Biden was winning by close to double digits in some national polls, but they also know Hillary was also favored to win, and the weekend before Election Day her lead was only three and half, none of them have gotten complacent expecting a landslide
It is a good simile, and the campaign manager can be compared to a coach
Darth Omar
Russian asset
They might doubt that I ran a 30:03 10K back in the day.
And I wouldn’t blame them for this lol.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
But aren’t you crediting Democrat voters with analytical thinking lol?
No, it's not. It's a fallacious comparison.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Psychology is psychology.
What I described doesn’t take “analytical thinking,” common knowledge
Really, then it should be easy for you to show us how, we’ll wait
'Psychology' implies the study of the mind. How does that relate to leftists, lol?
Who's "we"?
You made the initial claim.
Prove it's a good simile, and explain how a campaign manager can logically be compared to a coach, if you can.
I'll wait.
Still waiting for you to show us how comparing sports to politics is a “fallacious comparison”
If it's "common", you should be able to explain it.
Already did, and gave you an obvious example, can lead of horse to water but can’t make it ...........
The metaphoric fallacy to a deductive inference (MFDI) is an example of incorrect reasoning along the lines of the false analogy fallacy. The structure of the MFDI proceeds from analogously relating two metaphors and then claiming that a property (quality or function) from one compared predicate of the analogy is contained by the other predicate. That is, the predication is treated as being transitive across an analogy between metaphors. The essential problem is not simply covered by claims that arguing from analogies is weak, but that the MFDI proceeds from informal semantical (metaphorical) claims to a supposedly formally deductive and necessary inference.
Fallacious analogical arguments are those wherein the similarity between the two components being compared is questionable or irrelevant. The so-called similarity is neither sufficient nor relevant to draw the conclusion the arguer wishes to make. The argument is referred to as a bad, questionable, or, false analogy.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.850.4352&rep=rep1&type=pdf
No, you didn't. Want to try again?
That’s fine, now show us how comparing sports to politics is a “fallacious comparison,” not what a fallacious comparison is, but how comparing sports to politics is a “fallacious comparison”
The two are too dissimilar to make such an analogous comparison viable, Anchovies.
Since my observations have led me to believe that you aren't capable of logical thinking or processing abstract concepts, perhaps this simplified graphic will assist you (although I doubt it):
