> As for the contention that Gruber will argue history is relevant when it suits him and irrelevant when it doesn't, well, we all do that
Agreed. But tossing out an analogy and claiming it applies is the lowest form of that. I think to make a real contribution you have to make some attempt to justify why the analogical bits are more relevant than the contradicting bits.
I'm not saying Gruber is wrong, or that he doesn't have a point to make. Just that he's "phoning it in" with this post. The points you make, in detail, make for much better analysis.
Agreed. But tossing out an analogy and claiming it applies is the lowest form of that. I think to make a real contribution you have to make some attempt to justify why the analogical bits are more relevant than the contradicting bits.
I'm not saying Gruber is wrong, or that he doesn't have a point to make. Just that he's "phoning it in" with this post. The points you make, in detail, make for much better analysis.