You should have gone with Hitler. You fail to distinguish between a forceful, but proper, analogy and the fact that people tend to use examples appealing to em

You should have gone with Hitler. You fail to distinguish between a forceful, but proper, analogy and the fact that people tend to use examples appealing to emotion when they aren't really appropriate. We are talking about negative consequences as a result of changing a law and the abolishment of slavery is as good an example as any. Positive actions yield positive outcomes. That's hopelessly naive. I have provided an example of why initial negative consequences may be unavoidable to change things. You are just contradicting me, without addressing the point.