>This analogy erases the nuance that might make one desirable to society and the other undesirable. Could you explain the nuance then? In recent days I've fou

>This analogy erases the nuance that might make one desirable to society and the other undesirable. Could you explain the nuance then? In recent days I've found this explanation often used and generally in ways that I am not convinced of. In many cases, the arguments being presented are done so without any concern for nuance, so I find it hard to expect someone to understand nuance that wasn't originally included in the argument. I get this is largely a result of people only presenting a summary of their argument (as I find any writing to be a summary as words convey less than thoughts contain). Especially since we are not talking about legal action the government is taking to ban something dangerous enough to society to be illegal, but a private business choosing to ban something because they choose to do so.