Trick question: It can't.

An analogy cannot be too extreme. In any discussion, you should be able to analogize any two distinct things without anyone saying, "Wow, I can't believe you're trying to compare murder with something so innocuous," as if the point of the analogy was to compare murder and the innocuous thing.

Analogies are meant to establish parallels between the logical thread of two things. They're not meant to be perfect comparisons. To attack the imperfections of an analogy rather than the analogy itself is, in my opinion, an ad hominem. You're attacking someone's verbal capabilities, their eloquence, rather than the actual argument.

It is fallacious to assume that an argument is false simply because it was poorly argued. Sometimes, people compare innocuous things to extreme things like murder or rape simply because they really want to apply your logic to a real circumstance. And if your logic doesn't hold up in any REAL circumstance, it probably shouldn't hold up in any case.

I wish I could come up with examples at the top of my head, but I'd like to see other people's opinions on this first.

It can definitely be so extreme that it hinders your argument. I'm not really sure what you're getting at though; is someone saying that analogies can be so extreme that they're offensive? It'd be helpful if you could provide the analogy or conversation that sparked this discussion.

Nothing sparked it, I just made this thread on a whim. There have been numerous instances in the past where people took offense to my analogies and tried to use their own weak will as an argument against the analogy.

As an anti-natalist, I often make the argument that childbirth is wrong for the same reasons that rape is wrong.
They're both nonconsensual deeds, and they both beget pain and suffering.

Those are the only two aspects being compared. It's an extreme analogy, but it's not too extreme.

It still gets my point across. But people will often ignore my position simply because I (apparently) believe that the two acts are one in the same, which is... retarded.

I think in that example, rape is a perfect analogy. It's all the domain of bodily autonomy and consent, so there's really no reason to say it's too extreme. And assuming your position is actually right, I'd say birth is a violation orders of magnitude worse than rape.

You did state earlier, however, that analogies can be extreme enough to hinder one's argument. Could you give an example of that? Because if you don't consider my above example to be extreme (which is wonderful), I wonder where your standards lie.

Analogies should appropriately represent what you're trying to convey. If it's too extreme (or too weak, even), then it can fail to be an effective argument or imply you don't have a good understanding of what you're talking about.

I could say, "rape is like slavery because it dehumanizes the victim and removes their control over their body", and while some may find that distasteful, they'd still get the idea. If I said, "increasing taxes on the rich by 1% is like kicking down their door and robbing them at gunpoint", it might parallel the idea a bit but it's so exaggerated that it loses credibility and effectiveness as an argument.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 15, 2015, 09:35:58 PM

You did state earlier, however, that analogies can be extreme enough to hinder one's argument. Could you give an example of that? Because if you don't consider my above example to be extreme (which is wonderful), I wonder where your standards lie.

Analogies should appropriately represent what you're trying to convey. If it's too extreme (or too weak, even), then it can fail to be an effective argument or imply you don't have a good understanding of what you're talking about.

I could say, "rape is like slavery because it dehumanizes the victim and removes their control over their body", and while some may find that distasteful, they'd still get the idea. If I said, "increasing taxes on the rich by 1% is like kicking down their door and robbing them at gunpoint", it might parallel the idea a bit but it's so exaggerated that it loses credibility and effectiveness as an argument.

Essentially it's a scale I guess. Too high and the point is skewed somewhat. Too low and the point isn't given enough reinforcement. Gotta find the middle ground.