sciencevsromance:

reluctantukresident:

It’s been a long time, but I’m pretty sure opening the bridge for a boat doesn’t stop traffic for an hour. But let’s not stop undermining good arguments with faulty logic!

I guess that even though I’m 100% on the Occupy _____ bandwagon, I’m mostly grateful to the…

But why defend Occupy standing on the bridge for an hour with a false analogy that people aren’t distressed by waiting for a millionaire’s yacht passing through, when the latter takes demonstrably less time (probably at least half the time of the hour long bridge occupation)?  Shouldn’t the point be (1) sorry you’re so offended by a brief peaceful demonstration but whatever, crazy person on the Internet and (2) just go around like you would do if it was a millionaire’s yacht which doesn’t seem to bother you?  I have the same nit with Keith Olbermann implying Bloomberg is a hippocrit for citing the noise of Occupy WS as a reason for clearing the camp that was set up for two months by making a whole lot of noise on one night.    People should let alone false analogies, exaggerations and irrational justifications for actual arguments.  Isn’t dialogue what this is about?