*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Funny how you tell me I'm speculating and almost certainly wrong, then you go on to speculate and are almost certainly wrong.

I'm almost certainly less wrong than you.

It's not about being a "pushover". Wars are not meant to be "won". They are meant to cause economic misery and suffering. That would be easy to achieve.

The obvious effects are not always the main intentions.

[Poopadoop]

Is it that simple?

Is that a yes or a no?

[Poopadoop]

Hilary has a proven track record for supporting wars of aggression. You can say he's speculating all you like, but the truth of the matter is, he is a great deal more qualified to speculate on such matters than both you and I.

So are a lot of people. If you can find a large consensus of them that aren't politically motivated AND that say Hillary would have been a war monger POTUS, then I'll start to listen.

[Poopadoop]

Funny how every argument with you about how shitty a POTUS Trump is turns into some version of 'what about Hillary's emails?'

[OngBonga]

Funny how every argument with you about how shitty a POTUS Trump is turns into some version of 'what about Hillary's emails?'

I didn't mention any emails, and haven't done for a very long time.

It's more "what about how fucking psychopathic Hilary is".

If you can find a large consensus of them that aren't politically motivated AND that say Hillary would have been a war monger POTUS, then I'll start to listen.

Her voting history is sufficient evidence for me. Show me she voted against these wars and I'll start to listen.

Is that a yes or a no?

I genuinely don't know, and I'm not going to find out by googling. I have no idea what actions Trump has taken to end wars that USA were already involved in, and neither do you.

[OngBonga]

The war against ISIS has been "won" during Trump's time in office. I interpret that as Trump deciding to pull the plug.

[Poopadoop]

I didn't mention any emails, and haven't done for a very long time.

It's more "what about how fucking psychopathic Hilary is".

Same shit different pile.

Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.

Her voting history is sufficient evidence for me. Show me she voted against these wars and I'll start to listen.

I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.

I genuinely don't know, and I'm not going to find out by googling. I have no idea what actions Trump has taken to end wars that USA were already involved in, and neither do you.

I'm genuinely confident it's a number close to zero. And he's not been put up for the Nobel Peace Prize afaik, so there's that.

[OngBonga]

I missed a post...

Again, not relevant to how they're treating people on the US side.

We're in agreement here. I've said multiple times now that USA should accept their responsibilities to migrants in their country.

13/90,000 is 13 too many. Trump's human rights abuse is on a much larger scale, however.

13 too many. Yes, in a perfect world. It's not a perfect world,and it wouldn't be if Trump wasn't in office. 13 or whatever the actual number is, it's a tiny fraction and can be accidental and unavoidable.

And Trump's human rights abuse? Every president since fuck knows is guilty of major human rights abuse. Who is to blame for Guantanamo Bay? Not Trump.

[Poopadoop]

The war against ISIS has been "won" during Trump's time in office. I interpret that as Trump deciding to pull the plug.

The war was won because ISIS didn't have any territory left. I don't think that was due to Trump's military genius or the grand total of 2k US troops that were there. He didn't exactly need to do a Napoleon on ISIS to beat them.

And most of those 2k US troops are still in Syria.

[OngBonga]

Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.

Yes, I do like to argue that while Trump isn't a fantastic guy, he's less terrible than his predecessors. That's because his predecessors didn'y get nearly the level of hatred that Trump is subject to, both from the media and the public.

I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.

Good.

I'm genuinely confident it's a number close to zero. And he's not been put up for the Nobel Peace Prize afaik, so there's that.

Wasn't Bush Jnr nominated for that? That "prize" is a joke in today's world.

[OngBonga]

The war was won because ISIS didn't have any territory left. I don't think that was due to Trump's military genius or the grand total of 2k US troops that were there. He didn't exactly need to do a Napoleon on ISIS to beat them.

And most of those 2k US troops are still in Syria.

Why did ISIS lose territory?

[OngBonga]

Another question... who funded ISIS?

[Poopadoop]

And Trump's human rights abuse? Every president since fuck knows is guilty of major human rights abuse. Who is to blame for Guantanamo Bay? Not Trump.

Ikr? There's all sorts of bad things that Trump didn't do, why do people keep blaming him for the bad things he is doing?

I mean this is just a partial list of things he's not responsible for. What about them? Why are people so focussed on the present?

Vietnam War
Bikini Atoll testing
Allende Coup
Custer's Last Stand
1980s techno pop
The EU
Acid rain
Cancer
Pizza cheese that sticks to the carton

[Poopadoop]

Another question... who funded ISIS?

Was it Google? Apple? I don't know.

Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!

According to a 2015 study by the Financial Action Task Force, ISIL's five primary sources of revenue are as followed (listed in order of significance):

proceeds from the occupation of territory (including control of banks, oil and gas reservoirs, taxation, extortion, and robbery of economic assets)
kidnapping for ransom[1]
donations by or through non-profit organizations
material support provided by foreign fighters
fundraising through modern communication networks[2]

[Poopadoop]

I bet there's also a long list of thiings Trump hasn't done that other people might be doing in an alternate universe where they are POTUS. Jesus, I never even considered that.

[OngBonga]

Here's a list of Trump's human rights abuses...

Not adequately feeding and cleaning migrants

Feel free to add anything I've missed.

Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!

Here's more from Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

Note that "In July 2017, US officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out". Who was POTUS in July 2017?

[OngBonga]

Is it a coincidence that as soon as the USA stopped funding and arming "Syrian rebels" (aka ISIS), they started to lose the war? I'll credit Trump with that.

Ransoms and donations is not enough to maintain a caliphate. You need arms, and international support.

[Poopadoop]

Is it a coincidence that as soon as the USA stopped funding and arming "Syrian rebels" (aka ISIS), they started to lose the war? I'll credit Trump with that.

No, a coincidence is when things happen at the same time. ISIS was already losing when Trump took over. This probably didn't hurt, but it wasn't the deciding factor.

Ransoms and donations is not enough to maintain a caliphate. You need arms, and international support.

Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.

Oh, and here's another of those expert opinions you value so much.

Robert Baer, a former CIA officer and CNN contributor, strongly criticized the Trump administration's cancellation of the program, calling it "a strategic mistake" and "a gift to Vladimir Putin."

[Poopadoop]

Here's a list of Trump's human rights abuses...

Not adequately feeding and cleaning migrants

Feel free to add anything I've missed.

Ikr? Heydrich was only responsible for killing the jews who lived in Czechoslovakia. He didn't do anything else to abuse human rights, therefore he was overall an ok guy.

[OngBonga]

Robert Baer, a former CIA officer and CNN contributor, strongly criticized the Trump administration's cancellation of the program, calling it "a strategic mistake" and "a gift to Vladimir Putin."

Do you really live in a world where Putin is worse than ISIS?

Jesus fucking wept.

[OngBonga]

Ikr? Heydrich was only responsible for killing the jews who lived in Czechoslovakia. He didn't do anything else to abuse human rights, therefore he was overall an ok guy.

Not providing adequate care for immigrants = killing Jews.

Fucking hell mate, you're struggling here.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.

Who the fuck is going to provide arms and funding on the same scale as USA + allies?

Answer - nobody.

[Poopadoop]

Do you really live in a world where Putin is worse than ISIS?

Jesus fucking wept.

Not sure you understand the nuance there. It's not an either/or situation.

[Poopadoop]

Not providing adequate care for immigrants = killing Jews.

Fucking hell mate, you're struggling here.

Sorry if that analogy was too sophisticated for you to grasp easily.

Point is if you only ever commit one human rights atrocity, it's hardly a point in your favour.

[Poopadoop]

Who the fuck is going to provide arms and funding on the same scale as USA + allies?

Answer - nobody.

Wait, they gave them the money to pay for the arms they sold to others that ended up on the black market?

[OngBonga]

Not sure you understand the nuance there. It's not an either/or situation.

It sort of is. I mean it was the opposite of a gift to ISIS. The idea it was a "gift to Putin" is based on the fact Putin was actually fighting ISIS, rather than pretending to while actually arming and funding them.

Point is if you only ever commit one human rights atrocity, it's hardly a point in your favour.

Sorry if you're not grasping that scale of abuse is an important factor.

[OngBonga]

I mean, I would argue that creating migrants is a bigger human rights abuse than treating already existing migrants with contempt.

[OngBonga]

You're still dodging this question...

Oh and don't dodge this question please, it's quite important to the discussion...

Do you think people have the right to seek economic opportunities in whichever nation on the planet they choose?

[Poopadoop]

Sorry if you're not grasping that scale of abuse is an important factor.

You're absolutely right about this obvious thing. Killing 6 million jews is worse than being cruel to thousands of refugees.

My point, in case you need clarification, is that this doesn't make the latter ok, even if it is your only human rights abuse.

[Poopadoop]

You're still dodging this question...

I'm not actually interested in the question. That's your thing, immigration. My thing is human rights and the inhumane treatment of people; I don't care if they're immigrants or not.

[OngBonga]

My point, in case you need clarification, is that this doesn't make the latter ok, even if it is your only human rights abuse.

I do agree here. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm simply saying that, by human rights abuse standards, it's pretty minor. Much worse has been happening the last few decades as a result of US policy.

[Poopadoop]

I mean, I would argue that creating migrants is a bigger human rights abuse than treating already existing migrants with contempt.

Really, we can go and create another list of things Trump isn't currently doing that abuses human rights if that's your wish. I already absolved him of blame for the war in Vietnam though and several other things that happened before he became POTUS, so it seems redundant to add another list for other horrible things he isn't currently doing. He may very well not be beating his wife either. That seems like a point in his favour by your standards.

[OngBonga]

I'm not actually interested in the question. That's your thing, immigration. My thing is human rights and the inhumane treatment of people; I don't care if they're immigrants or not.

I know, it's hard to acknowledge they don't have such a right after saying you thought they do.

Immigration isn't a problem for me. Illegal immigration is, especially when economic migrants are presented to us as war migrants.

Is Guatemala at war?

[Poopadoop]

I do agree here. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm simply saying that, by human rights abuse standards, it's pretty minor. Much worse has been happening the last few decades as a result of US policy.

I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor. And I also think it's irrelevant to compare the current problem with problems created or exacerbated by others in the past, because that can be used to excuse virtually anything.

Anything but the Holocaust is 'not as bad as the Holocaust'. So?

[Poopadoop]

I know, it's hard to acknowledge they don't have such a right after saying you thought they do.

Immigration isn't a problem for me. Illegal immigration is, especially when economic migrants are presented to us as war migrants.

Is Guatemala at war?

Not the topic I'm discussing here. You got me sidetracked for a post or two, that's it. If you want to go full Mojo and blame the crisis at the border on the industrial revolution and the introducton of the combine harvester, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to engage.

[OngBonga]

I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor.

Human suffering is widespread. I do agree that the treatment of migrants in US camps is "unnecessary". It is indeed a black mark against the Trump administration. But it's perfectly reasonable to compare it to previous human rights abuse, especially recent ones at the hands of Trump's predecessors. If this is the extent of USA's human rights abuse, then it's a vast improvement.

[OngBonga]

Not the topic I'm discussing here. You got me sidetracked for a post or two, that's it. If you want to go full Mojo and blame the crisis at the border on the industrial revolution and the introducton of the combine harvester, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to engage.

Completely irrelevant and not what I'm arguing at all. I'm simply pointing out the the vast majority of people trying to enter America are seeking a better life, not fleeing danger.

[OngBonga]

Same is true in the UK, fwiw. France is perfectly safe, so those at Calais wanting to come here are economic migrants who have chosen the UK for economic reasons.

[Poopadoop]

But it's perfectly reasonable to compare it to previous human rights abuse, especially recent ones at the hands of Trump's predecessors.

Actually no it isn't.

If this is the extent of USA's human rights abuse, then it's a vast improvement.

Arguably it isn't, but really it's a moot point. If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews no-one would say 'well, that's an improvement. At least this new guy isn't as bad as Hitler was.'

[Poopadoop]

Completely irrelevant and not what I'm arguing at all. I'm simply pointing out the the vast majority of people trying to enter America are seeking a better life, not fleeing danger.

And I've already responded to that several times by saying I don't view the presumed motives of the people entering the country (and btw, it's not as if you can somehow divine them, but that's another sidetrack) as in any way relevant to their humane treatment.

[OngBonga]

If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews

How do you once again compare not giving migrants soap with the killing of Jews?

You're on another planet.

[Poopadoop]

Same is true in the UK, fwiw. France is perfectly safe, so those at Calais wanting to come here are economic migrants who have chosen the UK for economic reasons.

Does this mean France shouldn't have to treat them humanely, or if some of them swam over to Dover that the UK wouldn't have to treat them humanely?

Or is there some other way in which this is relevant to the discussion of human rights abuses at the US border?

Combine harvester?

[Poopadoop]

How do you once again compare not giving migrants soap with the killing of Jews?

You're on another planet.

You're conflating presenting an analogy to support a logical argument about degrees of 'badness' with making a direct comparison between the border and the Holocaust.

Here, try this if you're going to get triggered by the Holocaust analogy.

If you steal 5 marbles from your friend, but your dad once stole 10 marbles from his friend, stealing 5 marbles is still wrong.

[Poopadoop]

I wonder if a lawyer would ever argue in court that his client deserves a light sentence because he only raped a single child when he was a Boy Scout leader and the guy who had the job before him actually raped three.

[OngBonga]

Stealing 5 marbles is not as bad as stealing 10 marbles. Well done, you're getting somewhere. Stealing marbles off your friend is a shitty thing to do. But it's not nearly as shitty as, say, raping his sister.

[OngBonga]

I wonder if a lawyer would ever argue in court that his client deserves a light sentence because he only raped a single child when he was a Boy Scout leader and the guy who had the job before him actually raped three.

Oh look, you went back to comparing not providing soap with terrible crimes.

A lawyer would argue that stealing 5 marbles warrants a lower sentence than stealing 10 marbles.

[Poopadoop]

Oh look, you went back to comparing not providing soap with terrible crimes.

Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.

A lawyer would argue that stealing 5 marbles warrants a lower sentence than stealing 10 marbles.

Actually he wouldn't because he's a lawyer and it's not his job to point out the stupidly obvious to a judge. He also wouldn't compare it to stealing 11 marbles, 6 marbles, or 300 billion marbles. He also woudn't say it's not as bad as a human rights abuse because that's also stupidly obvious.

[Poopadoop]

So, in the end I sum up your position as follows:

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. Shit could be worse.

3. Arrgggh, immigrants!

Is that about it?

[OngBonga]

Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.

The point of an analogy is to provide a comparison.

[OngBonga]

So, in the end I sum up your position as follows:

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. Shit could be worse.

3. Arrgggh, illegal immigrants!

Is that about it?

FYP

[OngBonga]

Allow me to sum up your position...

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. This is analogous to, but not directly comparable to, killing Jews and raping boy scouts

3. Arrgggh, Trump!

Is that about right?

[Poopadoop]

The point of an analogy is to provide a comparison.

An analogy is a comparison on some level, but not a direct comparison. That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

If I had argued Trump is as bad as Hitler because the southern border is the equivalent to Auschwitz, then 'arrrrgggh!' would have been an appropriate response. I did not say that, however, because it's retarded and I generally don't say things that are blatantly retarded. Generally.

What I said was you don't get excused from a human rights abuse because worse abuses have been committed in the past. That's pretty much the opposite of saying the current situation is comparable to the worst mass crime in human history. So if anything 'arrrghgghg!' to yourself for interpreting my analogy as a direct comparison.

[OngBonga]

An analogy is suppose to draw a reasonable comparison. I wouldn't draw an analogy between having a bonfire and setting fire to a hospital, despite both involving fire.

[Poopadoop]

Allow me to sum up your position...

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. Ong doesn't understand how to interpret an analogy.

3. Ong would like to try to make the discussion about 'arrrggghghg! illegal immigrants!', 'arrrggghghg, Obama' or 'arghghg, Hillary', rather than simply agree with 1. above, even though he does agree with 1. above. He even took a stab at mentioning Brexit but I didn't take the bait.

4. Captain Retard is a shit president.

fyp

[OngBonga]

4. is analogous to "arrrgggggh Trump!".

[Poopadoop]

An analogy is suppose to draw a reasonable comparison.

On my planet, an analogy is used to make a logical point stand out independent of context. In the present discussion, I provided two very different analogies using jews and then marbles to argue about the scale of a crime because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.

If I had anticipated you making the silly assertion that I was offering such a stupid and unfounded direct comparison as one between 6 million dead jews and tens of thousands of shabbily-treated immigrants, I would have presented the marble analogy first.

I wouldn't draw an analogy between having a bonfire and setting fire to a hospital, despite both involving fire.

No, but you could draw an analogy between burning things down and human rights abuses at the US border. You could say in response to your 'but other people have done worse shit' argument, e.g., that burning a house down is a bad thing to do, regardless of the fact that burning a hospital down is worse.

[Poopadoop]

4. is analogous to "arrrgggggh Trump!".

Roughly, yes. The re-wording I suppose reflects I'm not so much angry about him as that I view him as a contemptible scab on humankind.

[OngBonga]

because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.

No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point. I basically was not allowing that.

[OngBonga]

Roughly, yes. The re-wording I suppose reflects I'm not so much angry about him as that I view him as a contemptible scab on humankind.

I'm not angry either.

[Poopadoop]

No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point.

That's one interpretation I guess.

I basically was not allowing that.

I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison that made no sense rather than a convenient analogy with the first human rights abuse that came to mind because it seemed like a good way to discredit me.

Further, I'm guessing that the fact it's obvious that such a comparison would be wrong didn't dissuade you from ascribing it to me because you're against 'libs' in general and it struck you as as a good opportunity to take a shot at one.

Either that or you really are just learning today the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.

[OngBonga]

...the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.

Key word - "subtle".

I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison

Nope. It's obviously not a direct comparison, we both agree on that. So based on that, you should understand why it's a bad analogy. It's more in fitting with your tendency to use language to exaggerate your point.

[OngBonga]

That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

Though I am aware that these two words do mean different things, you're wrong to say that different words always mean different things.

For example, I have used two words recently which mean exactly the same thing... "exaggerate" and "overstate".

[Poopadoop]

What a lot of people don't get about analogies is that they're not about a general equivalence between the two sets of things being compared. They're a logical framework for highlighting an important aspect of an argument.

A:a is analagous to B:b, but it's also analagous to tree:sapling or adult:child. One is bigger than the other. That doesn't mean making such an analogy is anything like concluding that 'A' is therefore an adult and 'a' is therefore a child.

If you said Holocaust:US border is analogous to A:a, therefore it's not a big deal, I'd say it's a perfectly valid analogy, but that you've drawn a poor conclusion.

[Poopadoop]

you would be wrong to say that different words always mean different things. But you didn't say that, so I'm sorry, I'm just talking shit here.

fyp

[Poopadoop]

Key word - "subtle".

Other key word - "difference". It's the combination of "subtle" and "difference" that highlights the distinction is nuanced but real.

Nope. It's obviously not a direct comparison, we both agree on that.

But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.

So based on that, you should understand why it's a bad analogy.

I understand why you want to argue it's a bad analogy. However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.

It's more in fitting with your tendency to use language to exaggerate your point.

If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?

[OngBonga]

fyp

You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.

But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.

It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.

However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.

They're both bad analogies.

If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?

I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.

[Poopadoop]

You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.

No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary. If you want to be a pedant, perhaps I should have elaborated with 'and the entry for analogy does not simply say 'see comparison'.'

It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.

lol, give it up.

They're both bad analogies.

What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?

I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.

yeah but 6000 posts is less than 6 million jews, so it's ok.

[OngBonga]

What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?

It's a reasonable comparison. The more reasonable the comparison, the better the analogy.

[OngBonga]

No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary.

You said it's why they have different entries in the dictionary. Here...

That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

[Poopadoop]

You said it's why they have different entries in the dictionary. Here...

I said 'distinct' meaning distinguishable - i.e. not simply 'see comparison'.

Fuck I wish people would spend as much time using a dicitonary as they do arguing about what words mean. There's no shame in it, honestly. I consult dictionaries all the time.

[OngBonga]

I said 'distinct' meaning distinguishable - i.e. not simply 'see comparison'.

Fuck I wish people would spend as much time using a dicitonary as they do arguing about what words mean. There's no shame in it, honestly. I consult dictionaries all the time.

Amusing then that you don't see why a poor comparison makes for a poor analogy.

[Poopadoop]

It's a reasonable comparison. The more reasonable the comparison, the better the analogy.

There's nothing in there about that except the bold.

Also, a logical analogy is not 'better' or 'worse' it's either valid or invalid.


analogy
/əˈnalədʒi/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

2. a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"

3. a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

4. Logic
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
"argument from analogy"



Let me help you connect the dots further here:

reasonable
/ˈriːz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: reasonable

1.
having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"


based on good sense.
"it seems a reasonable enough request"
archaic

able to reason logically.
"man is by nature reasonable"

2.
as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.


So, using the definition of analogy from logic (I'll leave it to you to look up logic and what it means re: arguments, 'cause I don't have all day to teach you for free), which is certainly going beyond any simple comparison, a reasonable analogy would be a logical one. It has nothing to do with appropriateness of scale. A:a is logically just as analagous to tree:sapling as it is to universe: proton.

[Poopadoop]

I mean fair enough I gave you too much credit for knowing what a logical analogy was, instead of assuming you thought all analogies required a direct comparison (which also isn't true, but is a more common misunderstanding of the word).

But even once I explained how it was a logical analogy you still tried to argue it was a bad comparison, like somehow logical analogy and direct comparison are interchangeable terms.

[OngBonga]

Great. Now google synonyms of "reasonable" and "analogy", and tell me if "sensible comparison" is a synonym of "reasonable analogy".

[OngBonga]

It's interesting you keep saying "direct comparison", as though I've used that phrase.

I haven't. That's you adding that word in to support your flawed argument.