You're saying that drawing parallels between the functions of two objects proves their equivalence for all intents and purposes. I'm drawing a similar analogy to show how fallacious this reasoning is. Now you're saying that what I said is "nothing at all like what [you] said".
Please, tell me... how is it different? Apparently if it falls to me to prove that furry cub art and child pornography are different, then by the same burden of proof it is YOUR responsibility to show how my example differs from yours.
But from what I've seen so far, I'm not likely to get that evidence. You'll just appeal to emotion again, showing no evidence except false analogies and calling my arguments "playing games" instead of refuting them.
You're saying that drawing parallels between the functions of two objects proves their equivalence for all intents and purposes. I'm drawing a similar analogy to show how fallacious this reasoning is. Now you're saying that what I said is "nothing at all like what [you] said".
Please, tell me... how is it different? Apparently if it falls to me to prove that furry cub art and child pornography are different, then by the same burden of proof it is YOUR responsibility to show how my example differs from yours.
But from what I've seen so far, I'm not likely to get that evidence. You'll just appeal to emotion again, showing no evidence except false analogies and calling my arguments "playing games" instead of refuting them.
Smile! The world could use another happy person.