I've noticed that arguing by analogy doesn't seem to work very well. When one tries, people* try oh so hard to explain why the analogy isn't *precisely* the same and therefore invalid. One should always be careful when arguing by analogy, as things are never precisely the same. However, when refuting such an argument you need to focus on those things that are actually relevant.
It reminds me of something Ari Fleischer would do. Fantasy press conference:
Reporter: Ari, Isn't it true that even though the president had criticized the the former president for having too much politics in the white house and spending too much time fundraising, the president has raised $90 million dollars in the past year?
Mr. Fleischer: Yes, but that isn't the same at all. The president has raised over $90 million, while his predecessor only raised about $20 million. So, you see, the situations are entirely different."
*by people I mean some of my mentally challenged commentors
