> Always surprising to me how the basic structure of analogy is so commonly misunderstood.
It's what happens when people don't have a rebuttal to the point being raised. It's generally a good sign that they're no longer engaging in good faith.
It's what happens when people don't have a rebuttal to the point being raised. It's generally a good sign that they're no longer engaging in good faith.
For example, let's try another analogy: If a plane crashes and kills a bunch of people, we investigate the cause of the accident and demand to know what happens. We don't decline to investigate, fail to assign blame, or neglect to comfort the families because "well, people kill people more than planes kill people."
Note that this analogy holds even though homicides account for 1600x as many deaths annually than plane crashes… because that's irrelevant to what's actually being compared in the analogy.