> But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A.
Wrong on two counts.
1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common.
2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that.
> Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.
Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.
Wrong on two counts.
1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common.
2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that.
> Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.
Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.