Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Alma feels that it's not a huge deal and so compares it to a trivial transgression. Angrymonk feels it is a big deal and so dismisses Alma's comparison as stupid. Both presumably have their own reasons for weighing it as they do so they'd probably be better off discussing those reasons than debating whether or not anyone should talk about the speed limit and metaphors.
The metaphor wasn't used to literally say that what Clinton did was the same as not slowing down after passing a new speed limit. That's absurd. The metaphor was used to demonstrate that since the infraction occurred during a transition period from a common practice (personal emails) and it didn't cause any harm (at least from what we know of), then it isn't a big deal. That's not to say she gets off the hook, but it's to say that it isn't as big of deal as others are making it. Now, if everyone before her used government emails and 'twas just Hillary who decided to do her own thing, then it would be a bigger deal.
The speed limit analogy was used because it's something that people can conceptually relate to. As mentioned, people often get stuck on the literal things being compared as opposed to the concepts.
Edited, Mar 15th 2015 8:51pm by Almalieque
You do realize that the moment you have to explain a metaphor, you have failed at communicating your concept to your audience? It is almost as bad as telling a joke and then explaining it when no one is laughing..
Apart from all this, metaphors are open to interpretation making them even less of a good vehicle for ideas ( and given that you seem to have problems with expressing ideas maybe you should use those sparingly ).
My point still stands ( you think that it is not a big deal ). To me it is a clear indication that you have the intelligence of an American voter. I would use a metaphor, but I am not sure it is a good idea for you.. they seem to get you confused.
Edited, Mar 15th 2015 2:59pm by angrymnk
