QuincyAbeyie It's a commonplace rhetorical strategy: one makes an analogy to the object of critique, but makes it with an inversion or displacement the estrangement of which emphasises or revives those features of the object under analogy otherwise lost in the dogma of common sense.
As to you calling it silly, well it might be, but for you to claim as much is as if I were to sneakily attempt to irritate you by "just asking" some faux-neutral question oriented around a disingenuously schematic and simple, but otherwise logical organisation of the premises of some discussion we were having, as if I were deniably insinuating that the challenge to answer would lead to you being lured into some superficially self-contradictory or silly position.
Edit: goddamnit this inverted analogy thing is over my pay grade
