H
hankroberts
Guest
The Parable of the Mustang
I have a friend who owns a Ford Mustang. He is very fond of this Mustang and is quite proud of it. He enjoys the Mustang, and likes to display it and show it off to others. During a conversation about the Mustang, he once made the comment that it was a really special horse. I pointed out to him that while the term mustang originally referred to a horse, the fact that the car company had taken the name to apply to their car does not make his Mustang a horse.
My friend took great offense at this and accused me of being unreasonable. It is a Mustang; it is a horse he said. I pointed out to him that we know exactly what a horse is, and that thing in his driveway is just not a horse. It may be a nice car; he may be very attached to the car; he might be fond of the analogy implied in the name; but the fact remains that his Mustang is simply not a horse.
My friend put a saddle blanket, a saddle and a bridle on top of the Mustang, and said There, see, it is a horse: it has a saddle on it, has the things you would find on a horse, so it must be a horse. Youre being unreasonable. I pointed out that having a saddle on it does not make it a horse.
My friend built a barn and put the Mustang in the barn, then came to me and said See, there is a barn, and what do you find in a barn? A horse. It is a horse, just as I said. I pointed out that being in a barn does not make a car into a horse.
My friend gathered a couple of other friends together and convinced them that his Mustang was a horse. He then came to me and said See, Im not the only one to say that my Mustang is a horse. Others look at it and say it is a horse also. So it is a horse. I pointed out to him that we know exactly what a horse is, and his car, while he might think it nice, simply is not a horse.
My friend went out and found other people who shared his view that anything called Mustang must be a horse. He found a lot of people who shared this view, and proclaimed that since a lot of people believed any Mustang was a horse, then it must be true. I pointed out to him again that consensus had nothing to do with the truth of a statement, and that no matter how many people agreed, his Mustang was still not a horse.
My friend, and his newfound friends, all agreed that I must hate him in particular or even that I must hate all owners of Mustangs. They decided it might even be true that I hated his Mustang, or even that I hated all Mustangs everywhere. It was obvious that I hated because I continued to disagree with him. I tried to point out the logical error in this thinking, to no avail. I became a bigot and an equinophobe. I pointed out the nominal fallacy in their labeling, but it did no good.
Finally, my friend went to his legislator, along with a lot of his other friends, and convinced the lawmaker to submit legislation requiring that everyone in the state acknowledge and accept that all Mustangs must be officially recognized as horses, and that no person be allowed to make the claim they were not. Any person who owned a Mustang had all the rights and privileges of the owner of any horse, including registration and official recognition of status. If he took his horse to another state, then residents of that state must also recognize his Mustang as a horse, even if they disagreed. There, that settles it my friend said, Now you have to accept that my Mustang is a horse; its the law.
But you know something?
It still is not a horse.
It never was a horse.
It is not a horse now.
And it never will be a horse.
Why? Because a car simply cannot be a horse.
I have a friend who owns a Ford Mustang. He is very fond of this Mustang and is quite proud of it. He enjoys the Mustang, and likes to display it and show it off to others. During a conversation about the Mustang, he once made the comment that it was a really special horse. I pointed out to him that while the term mustang originally referred to a horse, the fact that the car company had taken the name to apply to their car does not make his Mustang a horse.
My friend took great offense at this and accused me of being unreasonable. It is a Mustang; it is a horse he said. I pointed out to him that we know exactly what a horse is, and that thing in his driveway is just not a horse. It may be a nice car; he may be very attached to the car; he might be fond of the analogy implied in the name; but the fact remains that his Mustang is simply not a horse.
My friend put a saddle blanket, a saddle and a bridle on top of the Mustang, and said There, see, it is a horse: it has a saddle on it, has the things you would find on a horse, so it must be a horse. Youre being unreasonable. I pointed out that having a saddle on it does not make it a horse.
My friend built a barn and put the Mustang in the barn, then came to me and said See, there is a barn, and what do you find in a barn? A horse. It is a horse, just as I said. I pointed out that being in a barn does not make a car into a horse.
My friend gathered a couple of other friends together and convinced them that his Mustang was a horse. He then came to me and said See, Im not the only one to say that my Mustang is a horse. Others look at it and say it is a horse also. So it is a horse. I pointed out to him that we know exactly what a horse is, and his car, while he might think it nice, simply is not a horse.
My friend went out and found other people who shared his view that anything called Mustang must be a horse. He found a lot of people who shared this view, and proclaimed that since a lot of people believed any Mustang was a horse, then it must be true. I pointed out to him again that consensus had nothing to do with the truth of a statement, and that no matter how many people agreed, his Mustang was still not a horse.
My friend, and his newfound friends, all agreed that I must hate him in particular or even that I must hate all owners of Mustangs. They decided it might even be true that I hated his Mustang, or even that I hated all Mustangs everywhere. It was obvious that I hated because I continued to disagree with him. I tried to point out the logical error in this thinking, to no avail. I became a bigot and an equinophobe. I pointed out the nominal fallacy in their labeling, but it did no good.
Finally, my friend went to his legislator, along with a lot of his other friends, and convinced the lawmaker to submit legislation requiring that everyone in the state acknowledge and accept that all Mustangs must be officially recognized as horses, and that no person be allowed to make the claim they were not. Any person who owned a Mustang had all the rights and privileges of the owner of any horse, including registration and official recognition of status. If he took his horse to another state, then residents of that state must also recognize his Mustang as a horse, even if they disagreed. There, that settles it my friend said, Now you have to accept that my Mustang is a horse; its the law.
But you know something?
It still is not a horse.
It never was a horse.
It is not a horse now.
And it never will be a horse.
Why? Because a car simply cannot be a horse.
