Arguing analogies is hopeless: arguing about specifics, changing minor details to make a point is arguing a synthetic case that has no bearing on the actual cas

Arguing analogies is hopeless: arguing about specifics, changing minor details to make a point is arguing a synthetic case that has no bearing on the actual case under discussion. Whether you illegally entered someone's house, garden shed, school office, car, briefcase, lunch box, coat pocket, smartphone or computer are things that are different in important ways. Whether you had to force your way in, schemed and lied to perform your act or could perform it without any trouble matters. What someone subsequently did is also relevant. Planting a note 'your ... was open' differs from planting a turd or an explosive. We are dealing with someone that changed the background of a desktop on a computer obviously left easily accessible. That is what should be discussed.