When say "Yes" and "No"

 Abusive analogy is a highly specialized version of the ad hominem argument. Abusive analogy is a fallacy. An analogy that is meant to ridicule or discredit the arguer is used instead of directly insulting him. The opponent or his behavior are related to something that will cause the audience to react negatively toward him.

Despite the fact that he is as knowledgeable about ships as an Armenian bandleader, Smith has suggested that we take a vacation sailing.

(Maybe you don't have to know all that much for a cruising occasion.

Smith is ever-evolving. The point is that the comparison was made with the intention of making him appear ridiculous. There might even be a few Armenian bandleaders who are excellent sailors.)

From the perspective of the comparison being made, the analogy may even be true. Because the intention is to introduce additional, undisputed material to influence a decision, this makes it more effective but not less fallacious.

A scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than a Hottentot running through the bush if science admits there are no certainties.

(This is true, but it is meant as abuse to make the listener more receptive to the possibility of certain knowledge.)

Because it relies on the audience's associations with the image that is presented, the fallacy is subtle. Its proponent does not need to say anything that is false; He can use the associations the listener makes to make up for the abuse. The

harmful similarity is a false notion since it depends on this unessential

material to impact the contention. While I congratulate my coworker on his new position, I should point out that he has no more experience with it than a boy who sneers on his first day of school.

(Once more, valid. However, notice who is snorting.)

Despite politicians' fondness for analogies and abuse, there are surprisingly few effective applications of the abusive analogy in politics. A good one should encourage abuse from its other associations and contain some truth in its comparison. If everything else is equal, it's easier to be offensive by making a false comparison than to be clever by using truthful elements. Few have surpassed Daniel O'Connell's memorable description of Sir Robert Peel:

...a smile the size of a coffin's silver plate.

(It is true that it has a superficial sparkle, but it makes us think of something rather dreary that lies beneath it.)

Much more promising sources for abusive analogies are the venom-laden writings of literary and dramatic critics.

Like a virgin waiting for the Sultan, he moved trembling around the stage.

(And passed away the following night.)

Abusive analogies require planning. If you don't plan ahead, you'll end up using comparisons that have been used before and are no longer fresh enough to bring vivid images to mind. You will not rise above the crowd by referring to your rivals as "straight laced schoolmistresses" or "sleazy strip-club owners." On the other hand, even the best-presented case can be ridiculed by a carefully crafted abusive comparison: a discourse like a Texas

longhorn; a point here, a point there, but a lot of nonsense in between."