No, it sounds like a completely valid thing to make such analogies. Whether it is true is another thing, but it certainly is a point of view. This sounds a lot like 'I don't like your conclusion so I am going to attack the perfectly valid means by which you attained it'.

My point of view that an analogy cannot possibly be, in your words, "true". Don't you think any analogy is leaky and we shouldn't use them? Any point of view demonstrated with an analogy can be conveyed without it.

And no, I attack this method not because I don't agree with the conclusion of comment I was replying to, it's because I hate analogies.

How comparing cloudflare to ford and then saying "wouldn't that be ridiculous if Ford got sued if a criminal bought a car" can be accepted by anyone as a valid argument? Yes, it would be ridiculous but that's it

On other side, judiciary system sometimes uses analogies. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

I wish there was such a rule for the courts too. No more "Intellectual Property" etc. Yet here we are.