This analogy fails because all three are markets of one kind or another. I can stay at home with the kids, buy food at a farmer’s market, and not date. In a market system solution that works for 10% of the population, or 1% of the population, is workable. Political systems, OTOH, are winner takes all. Regardless of what I do, we will have somebody elected president. If 35% are going to vote for Thor, and 35% are going to vote for Loki, then regardless of what I do I’ll get a Norse deity. At the most, I can help sway towards one or the other.
The analogy isn’t valid. By not making sodas available, you are making them unavailable. By not making contraceptives available, you are not making sex unavailable.
Teens that can make responsible choices can be trusted not to have unprotected sex. Teens that cannot, cannot. If the assumption is that teens cannot be responsible, then handing them contraceptives in the hope that at least they’ll use them is a good idea.
The problem is that words are fuzzy. They change meaning based on how people use them. Dictionaries are a trailing indicator of how people have used them in the recent past.
There are two things that call themselves “feminism”.
One is about making women strong, getting women to do more. That is good, as making people more capable is a good thing.
The other is about making men weak, or remaking human nature. That is evil, as making people less capable is a bad thing.
The analogy to dermatology is pretty weak. Calling yourself a dermatologists requires a certificate. It is a term that is owned by an organization that protects the brand.
Feminism does not have that kind of defense. Anybody can call themselves a feminist,
For this analogy to be apt, you’d need to ask what Ron Paul would do if your neighbor on the other side came over and broke your windows. Would Ron sit there minding his own business? Or would he intervene?
You can take the analogy in different directions from there, some of which are pro-Paul and some of which aren’t.
Remember: An analogy is neither true nor false. It is simply more or less apt, depending on the context, on how well it is argued, on how well it would hold up over time, and so forth.
This debunking in a frame comes from Dawn Geisler. It is one thing to do something easy and simple because of your ideals. It is quite another to do the nearly impossible.
This analogy fails on several fronts:
- Only 7-10% of the Germans were members of the Nazi Party. But in 1933 about a third of Germans voted for it, before voting Nazi became a health thing.
- The Nazi Party was the government. As such, it could compel the obedience of the rest of Germany. Other than Iran and ISIS/ISIL/Da3esh controlled territory, Islamists aren’t a government able to compel its population.
Our real problem with the Islamic world is neutrality. It is full of people who believe that the fight between the Islamists and the west is none of their concern. They’ll just pretend to follow whoever wins. This means that they won’t oppose it if the Islamists do take over their country and use it as a launching pad. Which means we in the west might have to treat them as if they were WWII Germans. But we aren’t at that point yet, and may never get there.
One Muslim country has already deposed an Islamist leader. Hopefully others will follow or not allow the Islamists to take power in the first place.
h/t Ian Barrs