>
>>firstly, metaphors aren't supposed to be connected with
>their
>>subject, as you ought to know
>
>Actually, they are.
>

a metaphor is a phrase that is not literally connected to the thing it's describing
saying "the metric system is a bad metaphor because it has nothing to do with morality" is fucking world class redundancy

>Discussing the differences between the imperial/metric system
>is merely a difference between two countries. Discussing any
>difference at all is not helpful for discussing differences in
>moral codes. Again, I could use the difference between Japan
>Yen and the Mexican Peso as an example of a difference. That
>difference would, however, be a terrible metaphor for the
>differences in moral code between the two places.
>

How about this: every human being has the concept of weight. Any quantifying terms given to weight are meaningful only to the person who made them. Eventually people manage to standardize the terms into an agreed system of measurement, but there will be different systems amongst different peoples, Similarly every human being has concepts of right and wrong, but they're only meaningful to themselves (subjective morality), eventually people manage to standardize the concepts (law), but there's still peoples with different laws.

>
>>ask donne what individuals have to do with islands
>>ask burns what love has to do with plantlife
>>etc
>
>Those are real metaphors, though.
>
>They discuss specific behavior on one object that is helpful
>for understanding aspects to another, more abstract,
>non-descript object(plant life vs. love).
>
>

people have different systems by which to make judgements
you have physical judgements, and you have moral judgements

it's really simple


>the film 'Get on the Bus' was a metaphor film, for example. It
>compared the bus ride to Washington DC, to the Million Man
>March in 1995 to the state of black manhood as a whole.
>
>The 'Bus Ride' and 'Black Manhood' are completely different.
>Spike Lee did an exquisite job of using a relatively concrete
>object('Bus Ride') to help describe an abstract, non-descript
>object('Black Manhood in America').
>
>That is an excellent metaphor. The objects have specific
>relationships, and the elements of the concrete example are
>SPECIFICALLY related to the abstract object.
>

lol. i've not seen Get on the Bus but it looks like you're comparing a metaphor that's developed for an entire film, with a metaphor that takes up a couple of lines then gives way to the actual subject. of course it's not as developed


>>you're taking it beyond a simple metaphor and wanting it to
>be
>>a full blown analogy
>>we can entertain this if you want
>>the metric system has come into common usage in english
>>speaking coutries relatively recently, so actually it fits
>>well since Tarantino's film is about how evil functions in
>>MODERN society, where values have changed a lot (and yes the
>>metric system is the one used by the criminal underworld of
>PF
>>- the drug dealer weighs the heroine in grams)
>
>That doesn't make a grain of motherfucking sense.
>
>Not a single, fucking grain.
>
>Not one.
>
>For one, English speaking countries have been using the
>metric system for eons. Every scientist in the United States,
>every single one, has been using the metric system for the
>past century, at least. In fact, I am a scientist, and have
>never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever measured anything of any
>kind in anything other than the metric system, and neither
>have any of my previous bosses who have been doing the shit
>for half a century.
>

this is idiotic.
did you notice the term "common usage"
meaning outside scientific usage
and more importantly if you were intellectually honest you would consider how the metric system has only been fading in to common vocabulary of English speaking countries over the last 20 or 30 years, that lots of middle-aged people didn't learn it at school, that the US is a particularly slow adopter and still hasn't officially taken to it (for general purposes like trade and road signs), and having considered that you would not make this irrelevant point about scientists (btw, congrats on being a scientist)

p.s. shame about that NASA probe that smashed into Mars because some scientist got miles and kms mixed up



>And the reason why the criminal underworld uses the metric
>system is because the science world uses the metric system,
>because they use the same tools to measure their substance as
>the scientific and medical world uses to measure there
>substances.
>

1. It's not that important. It's just showing consistency
2. Where I live people measure drugs in ounces. Maybe for heroine they exclusively use grams though

>Secondly, no, requiring a metaphor to actually be a metaphor
>is not requiring it to be a "full blown analogy."
>
>Again, a metaphor typically describes a concrete
>phenomenon'object, and dicusses elements of that
>phenomenon/object that are similar to a relatively abstract,
>non-descript object/phenomenon.
>

not exclusively. you often hear phrases like "gallons of fun", "acres of knowledge"
Shakespeare frequently used metaphors between two abstractions, it's practically his trade mark


>The fact is that the only thing that Imperial/metric has in
>common with US morals/Dutch morals, is that they are
>different. That is similar to saying that the mean
>temperature in the US/Mean temperature of Holland are
>different, and attempting to relate this to moral differences.
>They would all be terrible analogies, unless one discussed
>SPECIFICS OF THE CONCRETE object that related to the abstract.
>
>

look
subject of the discussion is the that there is difference between moral systems
metaphor used is systems of (weight) measurement, which differ

you couldn't use "differing mean temperature" as a metaphor, that's just a physical fact, there's no judgement or system or people involved


>>anyway
>>do you realize what you're saying?
>>have you ever seen the statue called Justice outside the Old
>>Bailey (you most likely have)
>>have you noticed that in one hand it holds a sword and the
>>other hand it holds a set of scales?
>>THE FUCKING SCALES OF JUSTICE
>>the most well known metaphor for justice/law/morality in the
>>entire english language, probably in the world, probably in
>>HISTORY
>
>Uh.
>
>No.
>
>The "scale" has thousands of applications. There are
>thousands of metaphors for morality.
>

the "scales of justice" is the most common metaphor involving scales, and the most common metaphor for justice. it's on statues outside courts of law, it's on textbooks, it's on walls inside pyramids


>Anytime we say that we need to "balance" something, we are
>using the scale as something of a metaphor.
>

no we are not, because the verb "balance" has passed into our language as a verb and whenever anyone uses it they aren't trying to use a metaphor. when someone says "analysis" they are not thinking of breaking something up, they just use the word

if you're talking about the "scales of justice" you KNOW you're using a metaphor
if you see ten males on the jury and say the jury's imbalanced, you're NOT using a metaphor

>The problem is the scales of justice, and the "balance" has
>nothing to do with the differences between the metric and
>imperial system, or even worse.
>
>The "scales of justice" is a discussing of morals, not the
>fact that you need multiply the number of miles on your car
>mileage by 1.609 to get the number of kilometers.
>

scales of justice
balancing the crime with the punishment
weighing in metric or imperial
using dutch law or u.s. law

>Like I said -- Its either a terrlbe metaphor, or the product
>of an active imagination on the part of you overanalysts.
>
>I'd say its probably a mixture of both.

that doesn't even make sense. either Tarantino used a metaphor or I (and others) just imagined he did. you can't have a mixture of both

>
>Tarantino might have been trying to say something, but the
>analogy sucked, AND you all misinterpreted his attempt and
>over-arch your attempts at rationalizing it.
>

what's laughable about this is that it's such a small thing
i could have said 'dutch law' instead of 'the metric system' and we wouldn't even be having this discussion
it's not like Pulp Fiction or my point relied on this metaphor
there's material to back it up or do its job immediately following on screen
yet you zoom in on it like it's crucial, and talk complete nonsense too

i'm still laughing at you saying the metric system was a "colder, narrower" system of measurement

COLDER? NARROWER? were you speaking metaphorically?