A less clickbaity title would be "Don't base your arguments on analogies". I agree with the premise put forth in part one: analogies are better for illustrati

A less clickbaity title would be "Don't base your arguments on analogies". I agree with the premise put forth in part one: analogies are better for illustration than for argument. In parts 2 and 3 they use two examples of bad analogies which I think aren't very good. They are both moral issues. In both cases, the counterargument is that the issue used in the analogue is too morally different from the original issue. But to the people in both examples they used that analogy because they think it they are morally comparable. Jimmy likely thinks that smoking extra pot is about the same as eating icecream. That's probably why he chose the analogy. I imagine it is similar for the comparison between drug use and pregnancy out of wedlock. The OP's argument relies on everybody thinking everybody has similar moral values to themself. It would have been better to stick to the ethernet vs road system analogy and used it to demonstrate his points in parts 2 and 3.