I mean the mere fact foxpoop and that other imbecile yogg are saying in this analogy that ALICE is a blackmailer untrustworthy and deserves punishment and BOB is the victim and is deserving of trust.
Where did either of us ever say that?
I ask him to bring these stupid posts and debate with me how they are stupid .
Your stupid posts can be viewed
here. I'm afraid I have neither the inclination nor the time to go through all of them and explain why each one is stupid and how they compare to all your other stupid posts. I may be a vixen*, but even I'm limited in how many fucks I can give.
*At least I think I still am. Your pronouns are slipping.
I fail to see how an analogy can be called stupid without actually knowing the "similarities" to the mirrored scenario that I am referring to.
I already explained that, in the part where I said "It is a stupid analogy
because..."
Foxpup assumes that an analogy must for some unknown reason depend upon and be bound by (her) universally acknowledged behaviours/psychology of cell phones thieves. He then makes some broad "no person would do this " " no thief would do that" assumptions that are of course impossible to substantiate, and of course supplies no stats to suggest that any of his claims are anything other than bogus. He misses the point that I could give an analogy involving a purple cat dog that resides on mars if I wanted to. Only a fool like fox pup believes that invalidates it as a analogy without knowing the similarities to its paired example.
The purpose of an analogy is to present a
familiar scenario for the purpose of explaining a less familiar concept. But your analogy and the behaviour of the people in it are completely
unfamiliar, at least to a sane individual such as myself. It is not entirely clear to me what concept is supposed to be explained by this analogy involving crazy people not behaving as sane humans.