The plane metaphor seems very loose and disparate from the main points of the piece. The idea is that one plane has better odds than the other. The odds in this analogy are supposed to be relatively good for each plane, but the focus is that we would always pick the one that has slightly better odds if it were as black and white as a plane (which it is not). The other point I got out of this other than the fact that it seems very general is that it doesn’t take into account exactly what odds are: gambling. Even statistically if one is better on a more usual basis, theoretically that’s where we’d get our do good citizens and members of society. The less sure plane would crash every now and then, but it would also churn out more rewarding results than the first plane. We might randomly get the next Ghandi or philosopher. I think the analogy is simply trying to place the idea that it’s an easy decision to choose normal marriages over single parenting or same sex marriage and it even has the slight implication that it’s dangerous and unstable. The author does a good job of trying to seem balanced and neutral during this entire piece, but like this analogy, some sections of it betray a train of thought that is carried and argued by the author.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I like your idea Patrick about odds and gambling, how although the one plane may crash more often, it is going to "churn out more rewarding results". This is a good point because it is very true in the world of gambling. I don't think the author was thinking along these lines though, like you said, he was simply trying to make having two parents in the family the clearly better choice.
Post a Comment