Banty wrote:

In article , Knit Chic says...

I THINK that what Banty is asking is for you to say why the analogies
are not appropriate. You are saying that the article compares apples
to oranges. That's what analogies do. Compare one thing to another.
The apples and oranges being inappropriate comes in when you are
assuming that the two things being compared are equivalent. For
instance, if you are comparing the price of a VCR/DVD player with just
a straight DVD player, that is comparing apples to oranges.


"Banty" wrote in message
...



OK - different children may need different limits, even in a world where
limit-setting is always appropriate.

It still doesnt' clarify what you think is apples vs. oranges in the
article.
Which analogy fails, and why?

This is a quote in the artical .. they are using to prove their point
"Intellectually, we know the odds: The chances of dying aboard
a plane are slim (Lifetime odds: 1 in 500,000, and that's for
frequent fliers). But emotionally, we aren't convinced. Flying
scares us."
um .. flying has nothing to do w/ child hood dangers.

But why isn't it an analogy to childhood dangers? It seems that you're
dismissing *any* analogy, or don't quite get how a point is made by analogy.

To spell it out, what the analogy is, is that:

1a. Flying entails a risk of crash.
1b. Crashes are quite severe and make the news, but they are also quite rare
(which is why they make the news).
1c. Not flying also has a cost - limiting oneself in one's travels.
1d. People nonethesless fly to access the benefits of travels, even if they are
mindful and somewhat fearful of rare crashes.

2a. Children playing outside without immediate, direct parental supervision
entails a risk of abduction.
2b. Abduction is quite severe and examples of abductions makes the news, but
they are also quite rare (which is why they make the news).
1c. Not playing outside, or much less often and only under immediate and direct
supervision has a cost - limiting the child from childhood experiences,
excerise, opportunities for growth.
1d. People should nonetheless allow their children some freedom to access the
benefits of the freedom to play, even if they are mindful and somewhat fearful
of rare child abductions.


I used my own example as my post isn't written to the the OP but someone
else who asked me a question.

The question was as to why, exactly, you thought the article was "apples and
oranges". It was _about_ the article.




Even *if* there were a sentance about dishwashing (where I think the
danger may
be in grabbing a knife or something like that), it would depend on what
point is
being made or how it's being made, and whether or not the obvious
differences
are pertinent to the point beging made.


In analogies there are *always*
differences.

exactly, that is one of the reasons I think this artical stinks ...

But arguing by anology is a perfectly legitimate way to reason.

again, I
don't have a side in the issue. I pretty much parent the way I want to
parent and don't really care much what others think of my parenting. I do
my best to be a mindful parent, my kids are doing well ... I think I'm going
in the right direction w/ them. If there is a time I think I'm not ... I'll
change what I'm doing. I have had to do that before.


Oh, I agree with all that - and I think that none of what is said in the article
negates the need for individual parents to make informed decisions concerning
individual children keeping in mind various circumstances.

What is being advocated in the article is that parents understand that there is
always some risk, and to make decisions knowing *real* relatie risks (instead of
what's the scariest risk), and also to understand that there are real costs and
risks in a decision NOT to do or allow something because of small risks. *Then*
make a decision.


What matter is whether or not they're differences which make the
analogy false ("apples and oranges").

That's the kind of clarification I'd be looking for.

Banty

well, I gave you the best I had w/ the time I had.

on the side, I just went back and read what you wrote, I have no idea what
you are asking me, if anything at all.



To justify where you think the article was arguing "apples and oranges".

Banty