I refuse to make your argument for you and then refute. Is it too much to ask to make a real case for how these "aspects" play out in real life to a difference before I refute?
I made my arguments. Now refute them. If not then you are incapable.
Ah, back to repeating. You have not "had to" repeat anything. You have been obnoxious enough to keep repeating after I asked you not to. There are no reasons, you are full of hot air
You say not to repeat and then ask again for the how those are dissimilar on ways hat make the comparisons meaningless, which makes me repeat the reasons. You cant refute the reasons.
No, I asked specifically for explanation of HOW your platitudes work in real life to make a difference to my parallel. WITHOUT repetition of the platitudes. You know this
When I gave a list of the dissimilar qualities that make comparing those two fall apart on this particular issue. You can either say why those dissimilar qualities dont matter or not.
OK, so you didn't. You repeated the old things again. You keep avoiding my ABc argument and the red/blue jackets parallel. It is up to you to show it matters first.
You know that this does not follow. There could be many reasons why I choose not to play your games. To try to score cheap points like that is even more intellectual dishonesty.
Since you are probably going to object to that: I can say "Airplanes can't fly because the sky is blue". That is not an argument, I would need to show why the blueness matters
I did explain why they matter. It explained which qualities were disimilar and how it makes your comparison break down. How much do you need it spoon fed to you?
You gave a strawman of why you think it is so. You have not, because you can not, actually refute why those disimilar qualities make your comparison fail.
And no, it is not sufficient to say "Well, not only is the sky blue, the forest has snakes too". You keep doing this. Platitudes like "scale" are not enlightening to me.
If instead I were to say "when the sky is blue, the atmosphere gets super hot, so the wings of the plane melt and fall off", then I would have at least a real (albeit poor) argument
You were on the right track a bit with the aging population argument, except of course you missed that the same could be used for families. At least that was an attempt.
You keep making this unfounded assertions. They always show to be wrong when we investigate them. Then you go on to new ones. I think you actually manage to fool yourself with this.
To use your formula, I explained how your comparison of A and B broke down due to factors c, d, e, and f were disimilar, and it is those qualities that matter when comparing A and B.
I have not gone on to k New ones. Funny because you said I was repeating them before. I'm still waiting for any attempt to show why the disimilar qualities I gave were wrong.
I did refute it. c, d, e ...k, they are all of the form of my new airplane argument platitudes. It does not matter how many platitudes you add, they are still just platitudes.
They are not in the form of your airplane argument at all actually. You have yet to actually refute the points. You are just hand waving them away by misinterpreting them.
But the reason is clear enough. You tried to show how it did not make sense, and failed, and now you instead try to pretend there is an argument there that you will not tell me about
Maybe you missed my argument that "scale" is not an argument. You must explain how scale plays a role. Hence my ABc argument, which you seem to have forgotten.
We did get to why scale matters actually. When you talked about letting a bump in your home, and I said it wouldn't matter if your home had millions of people already.