okaaay, so finally read through the 45 pages...and my brain hurts!! 😆
We clearly have a problem with logic here.
Let's look at an analogy shall we?
An analogy, acc to wikipedia is: is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process. In a narrower sense, analogy is an inference or an argument from one particular to another particular.
So, to the analogy:
What if when Indians began to agitate for independence, the British told us "Why didn't you object to us when we first arrived in the 1600s? Why didn't you object about the Dutch? Why didn't you object about the Portugese? Why don't you object to the colonization of Africa? Why didn't you object the viking invasion of england?.. ...See? See? You didn't right? So shut up and stop agitating now"
Do you see how spurious this logic is?????
How does NOT objecting to a previous incident of violence/aggression on this show or indeed any other show negate/undermine the need to object NOW. Surely it makes it only all the more important.
I'd also like to ask you once more to refer to the definition of an analogy...I am NOT equating the objection to the slap with the objection to colonialism...Just in case anyone has any doubts on that score.
Hope that helps!
Cheers!
Edited by narangi314 - 12 years ago