What they actually mean is rather “these two things are very dissimilar”, or “these two things are unequal”.

I guess in most situations “cannot be compared” could be replaced by “cannot be equated”, with less lingual inaccuracy and still the same message conveyed.

To come to the conclusion that two things are very dissimilar, very unequal, one necessarily has to compare them. So it’s rather odd to come up with “cannot be compared” after just literally comparing them.

For example, bikes and cars. We compare them by looking at each’s details, and finding any dissimilarities. They have a different amount of wheels. Different propulsion methods. Different price, and so on.

When this list becomes very long, or some details have a major meaning which should not be equated, people say they cannot be compared.

An example with a major meaning difference: Some people say factory farming of animals and the Holocaust are very similar, or something alike. Others disagree, presumably because they feel wether it’s humans or animals being treated, the motives or whatnot make a difference big enough that the two should not be compared equated.

Can you follow my thoughts? Are ‘dissimilar’ or ‘unequal’ better terms? I’d be especially interested in arguments in favor of ‘compared’.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    351·
    5 months ago

    Ironically, what you’re doing is called “equivocating.” It’s the assumption that two different concepts mean the same thing, often because they are named with the same word.

    In this case, you are equivocating the concept of judging the relative merits of two things with the concept of noting differences between two disparate things. Both concepts are called “comparing” but they are different concepts.

    To use your example, you can compare bikes and cars by speed, by price, by cargo capacity, by viability as a means of transport, by weight, etc. You are looking at the qualities, quantifiable or otherwise, to evaluate the two things in relation to each other.

    You can also compare the mechanics of the two machines. A car has an engine and a transmission, a gas tank, power steering and brakes, electronics, a radio, rearview camera, tire pressure sensors, and cup holders. A bike has gears, a chain, pedals, a frame, brakes, a bottom bracket, a fork, shifters, reflectors, and a little cage for a water bottle. These might be similar in components and functionality, but you wouldn’t say one is better or worse, because they are each built for a specific function. If you compare a cup holder to a water bottle cage, you could define how they are similar and how they are dissimilar, but it would not be the same sort of comparison as comparing the top speed of a car to the top speed of a bike.

    Both uses of the term “compare” are correct. There’s no inaccuracies in your language, because the word “compare” means something different in each context. English is full of words like this, where the meaning can be slightly changed or even entirely opposite depending on when and how it is said. That doesn’t mean you are using the words wrong. Your confusion of the two concepts is the mistake, not the use of one word to describe two different things.

    • Spzi@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      4·
      5 months ago

      Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed reply. I guess you’re right about the equivocation and I can see the irony :D

      Though I have not fully understood yet. Following your example, the two different concepts are …

      • in case A, we compare the value of a property (different top speed)
      • in case B, we compare the purpose or context-dependend usefulness of an attribute (different types of liquid container holders)

      What blocks me from fully agreeing is that still, both are comparisons. And they don’t feel so different to me that I would call them different concepts. When I look up examples for equivocations, those do feel very different to me.

      I still guess you’re right. If you (or someone else) could help me see the fallacy, I’d appreciate.

    • masterspace@lemmy.caEnglish
      43·
      5 months ago

      Judging the relative merits of two things, and noting the differences between disparate things, is fundamentally the same thing.

      You can define a car as a steering wheel and an engine and a gear box etc.

      Or you can define a car as a generic object and one of the first fundamental properties of all generic objects is the list of all other features and properties that that object has.

      So noting the differences between two things, is really just judging the relative merits of their collection of properties.

      I would argue that @Spzi@lemm.ee is correct, and people often use “can’t be compared” incorrectly, or they intentionally use it that way to be over the top and dramatic, like saying I love you to infinity.