I don't have an opinion about what you and the parent are arguing, but could I talk you out of using the "false equivalence" phrasing? I find it creates more h

I don't have an opinion about what you and the parent are arguing, but could I talk you out of using the "false equivalence" phrasing? I find it creates more heat than light. "False equivalency" (sic) was coined when a pundit complained about Jon Stewart's speech at the famous rally. Jon said that people who disagree have many of the same hopes and fears, and the pundit wanted to get back to being polarized. So he's misrepresenting Jon's statement as "all sides are the same" and then refuting it with "no, my side is better". So for "false equivalence" to make sense as a refutation, the original claim would have to be "these things are equal in every way", so that we can just say "false!", but why would someone ever make that claim? Nobody ever says "this is a true equivalence", so we shouldn't expect "this is a false equivalence" to be a useful refutation. But please don't let me stop you from pushing back on crappy arguments. It's great to point out ways that a purported similarity doesn't hold up! Just watch out for the loaded term. (Likewise, "you can't compare" is sort of nonsensical -- all pairs of things can be compared, and they're almost always different in some way, which is why they have different names! Usually people just mean "those things are actually pretty different in the ways that matter here", but it sounds like they're saying "I forbid you to compare them" or "Those things have nothing in common whatsoever!")