No, I understood their point. It was a dumb hyperbolic analogy and it received a dumb loaded argument in retort.

I raised a clearly wrong hypothetical (which necessarily must be hyperbolic) to contrast the features of your argument (I think both have a couple of the same fallacies in their structure) with something we can clearly see where it lands, and not because I thought the two were identical in nature, equally defensible, etc.

It's unfortunate that you decided to write a post which failed to address the point of that argument (the weakness in your own argument), and instead pretended that I had somehow meant what was clearly a rhetorical flourish.

> (which necessarily must be hyperbolic)

Why?

> to contrast the features of your argument (I think both have a couple of the same fallacies in their structure)

You were assuming I was arguing about something completely different (something about kids getting their hands on drugs or some such nonsense). It’s like you didn’t even take the time to read what I had written, and instead had some canned response ready to go.

> It's unfortunate that you decided to write a post which failed to address the point of that argument (the weakness in your own argument), and instead pretended that I had somehow meant what was clearly a rhetorical flourish.

I took what you had written and used it as a podium to argue something completely different. Sound familiar :)?