The danger of using analogies during debates

[Jebus]

I'll recount a conversation I had a few days ago and I'm sure many of you have had the same experience.

I'll skip the first part,but basically it came down to the good old:

"Well, I respect your decision to not eat meat so you should respect my decision to do so"

I then countered with the analogy:

If you met a child molester would you tell them that you respect their decision to molest kids and that they should respect your decision not to do so?

The person became then became angry saying that eating meat is not the same as molesting kids and that was basically the end of that dialogue.

I try to use analogies in order to clarify my view point, but I find that when ever using examples that trigger emotion, such as murderers, child molesters, nazis it distracts rather than clarifies my viewpoint. Maybe I'm doing it the wrong way.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Meat is pretty much as bad as a Pedophilia or a Nazi because when you kill the animal, HE WILL DEAD! And if it is not bad enough, see the cruel and unusual ways they torture animals. It must take somebody as sick as a pedo or an SS man to do such an abhorrent action.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's a careful balance: enough emotion to provoke thought, but not so much as to shut down the conversation.

You may want to try something more along the lines of theft, or perhaps voyeurism.

"If you met a car thief in the process of stealing your car would you tell him that you respect his decision to steal your car and that he should respect your decision not to do so?"

It can also be helpful to use several analogies side by side of varying magnitudes, so the listener will be less likely to come away from it with the idea that you're equating them in degree.
You may even need to qualify it with the phrase "I'm not saying these are equal, but the same logic applies".

"If you encountered a jay walker who was walking across the street and blocking your car and stopping traffic would you tell him that you respect his decision to jay walk and that he should respect your decision not to do so?"

Ultimately, any attempt is not foolproof, and a big enough fool can take your efforts the wrong way.

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

I have used the example of littering, i.e. throwing your shit out in the street. It's something that affects everyone in the vicinity, something that is only done out of (anti-social) convenience, etc. By using an example that even the meat-eater will feel is a bit of an understated comparison, they are more likely to consider the logic, and perhaps even subconsciously think, "well killing animals is a bit worse than littering actually". This is better than something they will consider overstated, such as rape or whatever... Yeah so like brimstone says have varying analogies...

[brimstoneSalad]

I have used the example of littering

That's a good one! Although you'll find some people who actually do litter constantly and don't see the problem with it. You'd have to know your audience.

[PsYcHo]

Analogies can be highly effective (big fan myself), but unless you are actually talking about Nazis or pedophiles, the use of either one tends to basically end all discussion. If there are different ones to be used, use them instead. Godwin's law comes to mind.

[miniboes]

You can also use something simple like punching somebody in the face. I like to use the quote "My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.". You could say something like "would you respect my decision to punch that lady over there in the face?". It makes it very concrete very easily.