>The point that was made, was correct - Banning something does not solve the original problem
That point might have been correct, but it wasn't the one made.
If the analogy wasn't intented to be based on "essentiality" then picking something undeniably essential (and pointing that it's "nonsensical" to ban it because of some problem it causes) was the wrong choice.
But actually the point wasn't even correct. The correct point would be rather: "Banning something does not solve the original problem in _some_ cases". For there are many cases were banning something does solve the original problem. It might not solve it 100%, but it does solve it to a satisfying degree. That's the core idea behind the law banning things actually, and has worked for millenia.
>There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.
No, but there are such things as badly formulated analogies.
It is within the realm of possibility that you simply interpreted the comment incorrectly, and chose to be pedantic about minutia that a reasonable person would not.
That point might have been correct, but it wasn't the one made.
If the analogy wasn't intented to be based on "essentiality" then picking something undeniably essential (and pointing that it's "nonsensical" to ban it because of some problem it causes) was the wrong choice.
But actually the point wasn't even correct. The correct point would be rather: "Banning something does not solve the original problem in _some_ cases". For there are many cases were banning something does solve the original problem. It might not solve it 100%, but it does solve it to a satisfying degree. That's the core idea behind the law banning things actually, and has worked for millenia.
>There is no such thing as a perfect analogy.
No, but there are such things as badly formulated analogies.