What's your first impression of Eureka?

[MilanFrozen]

Edit: And you are upvoted for this post too. Do you guys really don't understand what is an analogy? Or has this thread just derailed to the point of just being a choir preaching itself, even if it defies common sense, just because it's fun to make me "the antagonist

The problem is that the analogy is poorly made. The "glass is half empty" analogy would've worked better for your argument as it is truly about perception.

[Fyce]

The problem is that the analogy is poorly made. The "glass is half empty" analogy would've worked better for your argument as it is truly about perception.

Any analogy can be debunked if you try hard enough. And that's exactly why it's ridiculous to do it. As long as it gets the point across, it has served its purpose.

For example, I could argue that the analogy of the half empty glass doesn't work either because the glass is never "empty", air molecules fill the upper part, so the glass is never technically empty... And I would bet you that if I used that analogy, someone would've came to me saying exactly that.

So, again, analogies aren't meant to be over-analyzed to be debunked. They just try to convey a simple idea. That's their sole and only purpose. As long as this idea is relevant to the point, it's good enough.

[Vidu]

So, again, analogies aren't meant to be over-analyzed to be debunked. They just try to convey a simple idea. That's their sole and only purpose. As long as this idea is relevant to the point, it's good enough.

...honestly all of that that you're critising here, sounds a bit like what you did with the expression "new content" and tryint to establish wether or not people were using that phrase correctly when they had different interpretations while completly ignoring the actual points of those, who dont like Eureka and why they dont like it, were making...

I dont mean to attack you but if you're advocating for not over-analysing analogies, maybe we can agree on not over-analysing single words and expressions aswell and rather focus on the actual points being made?

[MilanFrozen]

Any analogy can be debunked if you try hard enough.

I hereby call into question the validity of you arguing in favor of Eureka over being here for the sake of arguing.

[Fyce]

I hereby call into question the validity of you arguing in favor of Eureka over being here for the sake of arguing.

That's hard to swallow coming from somone who just talked to me about how I used a "poorly made" analogy, even if the main point was very clearly understandable without the need of being 100% technically correct.
Not only you didn't tackled the main point, but it had nothing to do with Eureka.

If you don't want me to argue just for the sake of arguing, why coming at me in such a way?

You are claiming this again when obviously most of us think that its false.

Keyword in bold.

[MilanFrozen]

That's hard to swallow coming from somone who just talked to me about how I used a "poorly made" analogy, even if the main point was very clearly understandable without the need of being 100% technically correct.

Naw, I'm just good at extrapolation.

If you don't want me to argue just for the sake of arguing, why coming at me in such a way?

You swung at me for the equivalent of coming up from behind you and saying "This might work better pal".