/lit/ - Literature

Since games=x the same way 4=2+2 because they're purely reducible to their constituents, we can state further that "X is X. Y is not X. Therefore Y is not X." The only disagreement might be with that last reduction, but even the original argument is only rephrasing the second premise as if the person arguing finally reached gnosis through his linguistic self-bewitchery. Each phrase ("is not" and "has no relation to") is separating subject X from subject Y, so they mean the same thing in this context.

As for your analogy at >>1679279
All you do is restate what you've already said which is fine for others who might not have gotten it, but analogies are useful only for illustrative purposes and useless elsewise, especially in rigorous argumentation. My rule, though, is that if your opponent defaults to "Hello Kitty" analogies, you know he's already lost.

Also, what do you have against the letter "m"?