Oddjob0226
4th Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2001
- Messages
- 6,852
- Points
- 0
More and more, I read the declarations from all the little Aesops out there in these threads where the debate will often reach a point where someone pulls out the old clinched saying about how you can't compare apples to oranges. Whether it is about Clinton vs. Bush vs. the other Bush, or wrestler vs. wrestler, creationism vs. evolution, Terri Schivo, Terry Gilliam, 2Pac or 3pac, someone will stop using their brain & pull out that "comparing apples to oranges" thing - thinking they've trapped the opposing viewpoint in a helpless web of tangled Ambrose Bearce intellectual superiority, rather than using creative, logical thought themselves to frame their persuasive arguments. It's almost as bad as the folks who begin their remarks with "Let me get this straight..." or "I'm confused here..." Examples from the past month:
"Vollin, you just made an "apples & oranges" comparison."
"Well, there were a lot of differences, I know that, but apples and oranges implies that there are no similarities, and there are some."
"WMD's and nuclear waste are apples and oranges."
"jugner, no, that's "apples & oranges" two different dictators with two different goals. "
Besides making me hungry, it's getting to be overused. But all of this is null and void, as you will see. You can indeed take two somewhat different examples of a concept (a thing, event or idea) that ALSO happen to have some commonalties within, and show comparisons or draw conclusions by the existence of said commonalties. You have to be delicate and precise, but you can compare apples to oranges:
Both are round fruits. Thus, we find we can compare apples, oranges and Louie Andersons.
Apples and oranges both contain similar amounts of dietary fiber, starch, lactose, maltose, galactose and get most of their calories from sugar, according to the FDA. I know - it's what a government agency WANTS you to believe, but it sounds about right to me.
Apples and oranges contain their seed on the inside of the fruit, unlike strawberries or cashews.
Both are silent, but roll easily, and you can write on them with a Sharpie.
Both are used as a juice fruit, as yogurt flavors, can be dried for snacking and can be used to garnish gelatin desserts, perhaps the most famous of which is the Jello brand.
Apples and oranges are a good compact size and weight for throwing at people, dogs, traffic lights or whatever strikes one's fancy.
They both contain red pigment. Our concept of an apple is generally a red one; 'orange' is the colors of yellow and RED mixed.
Orange = monocotyledon Apple = dicotyledon. But they are both of the Genus cotyledon!
The apple has thinner skin that the orange, but both are thin-skinned compared to the elephant.
Although in nature they grow and mature outside, if left too long in the sun apples and oranges both can shrivel and putrefy. Much like the elephant.
Both have peels that can be removed, or eaten. Both fruits are often eaten in sections. The orange sections occur naturally by God's wise design; the apple must be cut into sections because God just wasn't thinking.
Apples and oranges are relatively easy to steal, for consuming later. (Or throwing).
Both grow on trees, rather than one on a bush and the other dug up from underground, like a potato, let's say. AND a sweet potato is what? Orange! And "orange" contains the red pigment - like an apple!!!!
True, these are pretty much generalities, but it's a flippin' fruit bowl! Generalities will do just fine here, so don't get all Captain Exacto on me, thinking you've somehow found the 'weakness' in my argument.
So, next time you pull up the "apples and oranges" magical debate invisible shield, thinking it is your trump card (for the bridge players) or the ace in the hole in the TMF Celebrity Poker Showdown (for the cable tv watchers) TRY HARDER. If this is the best debate tactic you've come up with on your little spin on this planet, then American public schools have truly declined, and it is probably your fault to a great degree. As far as non-American foreigners who use this "apples and oranges" smokescreen, who can possibly know what's going thought their heads as the eat their snails, wear shoes made of wood and circumcise their women.
Heck- it's not just me; check this out:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
So as far as I can tell, it is much easier to compare apples-and-oranges vs. something like radios-and plastic-garbage-bags.
Ladies and gentlemen, 'lers and 'lees: Whether we be conservative or liberal, Christian, Muslim or (heaven help us) Rasta; be us vegan or BBQ, bug-out to rap or 2-step to country ... why can't we be more like fruit?
"Vollin, you just made an "apples & oranges" comparison."
"Well, there were a lot of differences, I know that, but apples and oranges implies that there are no similarities, and there are some."
"WMD's and nuclear waste are apples and oranges."
"jugner, no, that's "apples & oranges" two different dictators with two different goals. "
Besides making me hungry, it's getting to be overused. But all of this is null and void, as you will see. You can indeed take two somewhat different examples of a concept (a thing, event or idea) that ALSO happen to have some commonalties within, and show comparisons or draw conclusions by the existence of said commonalties. You have to be delicate and precise, but you can compare apples to oranges:
Both are round fruits. Thus, we find we can compare apples, oranges and Louie Andersons.
Apples and oranges both contain similar amounts of dietary fiber, starch, lactose, maltose, galactose and get most of their calories from sugar, according to the FDA. I know - it's what a government agency WANTS you to believe, but it sounds about right to me.
Apples and oranges contain their seed on the inside of the fruit, unlike strawberries or cashews.
Both are silent, but roll easily, and you can write on them with a Sharpie.
Both are used as a juice fruit, as yogurt flavors, can be dried for snacking and can be used to garnish gelatin desserts, perhaps the most famous of which is the Jello brand.
Apples and oranges are a good compact size and weight for throwing at people, dogs, traffic lights or whatever strikes one's fancy.
They both contain red pigment. Our concept of an apple is generally a red one; 'orange' is the colors of yellow and RED mixed.
Orange = monocotyledon Apple = dicotyledon. But they are both of the Genus cotyledon!
The apple has thinner skin that the orange, but both are thin-skinned compared to the elephant.
Although in nature they grow and mature outside, if left too long in the sun apples and oranges both can shrivel and putrefy. Much like the elephant.
Both have peels that can be removed, or eaten. Both fruits are often eaten in sections. The orange sections occur naturally by God's wise design; the apple must be cut into sections because God just wasn't thinking.
Apples and oranges are relatively easy to steal, for consuming later. (Or throwing).
Both grow on trees, rather than one on a bush and the other dug up from underground, like a potato, let's say. AND a sweet potato is what? Orange! And "orange" contains the red pigment - like an apple!!!!
True, these are pretty much generalities, but it's a flippin' fruit bowl! Generalities will do just fine here, so don't get all Captain Exacto on me, thinking you've somehow found the 'weakness' in my argument.
So, next time you pull up the "apples and oranges" magical debate invisible shield, thinking it is your trump card (for the bridge players) or the ace in the hole in the TMF Celebrity Poker Showdown (for the cable tv watchers) TRY HARDER. If this is the best debate tactic you've come up with on your little spin on this planet, then American public schools have truly declined, and it is probably your fault to a great degree. As far as non-American foreigners who use this "apples and oranges" smokescreen, who can possibly know what's going thought their heads as the eat their snails, wear shoes made of wood and circumcise their women.
Heck- it's not just me; check this out:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html
So as far as I can tell, it is much easier to compare apples-and-oranges vs. something like radios-and plastic-garbage-bags.
Ladies and gentlemen, 'lers and 'lees: Whether we be conservative or liberal, Christian, Muslim or (heaven help us) Rasta; be us vegan or BBQ, bug-out to rap or 2-step to country ... why can't we be more like fruit?
Last edited:
