Wednesday, April 14, 2010
It takes a family
This metaphor is clearly a weak metaphor amidst a far stronger statistical argument. The argument is clearly one that plays to the post 9/11 fears of planes that don’t always reach there destinations. While the metaphor’s point is valid, it is irrelevant; it would be better stated by pointing out that raising children outside of a marriage is like choosing the second plane for the children while their parents watch from the ground to see how there children fare. This metaphor is a very poor support to an otherwise strong argument. Arguably this point brings down the strength of the rest of the argument by association. The metaphor is underdeveloped for one; it needs more length to explain the point without making it appear redundant. The second, and more important is the person who in real life makes the choice for the children’s “plane” is not the one stuck on that plane with them, parents are essentially not in the same boat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Excellent job pointing out that, "The argument is clearly one that plays to the post 9/11 fears of planes that don’t always reach there destinations". I hadn't thought about that! I agree that the analogy is not a very good one, and I agree that an analogy consisting of the parents standing on the ground would make a stronger one. However, either way, the analogy is weak because, as you mentioned, it is not further explained. Good job!
Aside from a few grammatical errors (use of there instead of the possessive their) I found the blog to be fairly interesting to read. I had not thought of the 9/11 idea and would perhaps like the connection explained more. Other than that I felt that his argument really wasn't that strong, despite his so called "statistical" support. Overall I got the impression that he wasn't really making a logical argument by trying to cling to and apply religion to a government which really should not be influenced by the teaching of a certain religious sect.
Post a Comment