>It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, You may want to familiarize yourself with the HN guidelines: >Please don't post

>It is a shallow dismissal, you've read it correctly. Your analogy was silly, You may want to familiarize yourself with the HN guidelines: >Please don't post shallow dismissals >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html A better response could have either answered which of those points you actually disagree with and why, or if you don’t disagree with the points but just the analogy, offer up a better analogy. >the situation was quite straightforward and needed no simplification. To reiterate, the point of the analogy is not to simplify as you've suggested, but to cast it in a less emotional light given the impediments strong emotion can put up to rational discourse. To clarify further, I never said emotions are are inherently negative. I did say they can inhibit a discussion that is trying to get to rational underlying principles. We have lots of societal arrangements that acknowledge and try to mitigate this fact. Considering your reaction and apparent unwillingness/inability to answer very direct questions related to parenting seems to prove that point, as do the other commenters who have acknowledged any comments on parenting can become a third-rail in discussion due to this fact.