No, your analogy had no relationship to the content of this overall discussion.
Looking away from actual crimes being committed has no relationship to looking away from words on a screen. They are not analogous. For them to be analogous, the principle action and result of one would need to be comparable to the principle action and result of the other. If you look away from a forum on the internet, then no person has been physically harmed. If a person looks away from the commission of a murder, then someone has been physically harmed. You are comparing Playboy and snuff films.
Your logic is flawed, thereby nullifying your argument. You may teach SAT prep, but you already have the answers in front of you. The SAT does not require creative thinking. Everything is dry and straightforward.
Also, you never help your case by responding This does not lend others to sympathize with your position or believe your claims. Use this as a comparison:
A:"You are stupid."
B:"No I'm not. I'm smarter than you."
How will person A respond? Will person A typically believe person B on the face of their contention that they are in fact more intelligent, or does it beg further argument? Had you responded, for example, "I am an accomplished violinist," then no one would question any further. However, with a response claiming that you will "crush" others at various nameless hobbies, it sounds as though you are boasting as a defense mechanism. Such a defense mechanism reveals further weakness that can and will be exploited in the lounge in particular, but elsewhere as well.
I don't know what to tell you. If I wanted to reveal my real name, I could post links to a site that shows that I am a two time national champion at something that is played by people all over the world. But I don't see why I need to reveal personal information about myself.
If some person wants to be a jerk and say that I have no hobbies and no friends, I invite him to come visit me and A) meet my friends or B) come challenge me in any of 15 or 20 different hobbies, most of which I would likely crush him in.
I don't really know what else to say.
By the way, the reason I was chosen to teach SAT classes is that I was able to ace the questions WITHOUT the answers in front me. You are a smart guy so I assume you know that they don't just hire some fool who can read answers from a book right? Or am I giving you too much credit? I guess I am, because you implied that to be the case.
My analogy was valid. I'll slow it down for you since you seem to be struggling.
I said, originally (paraphrasing here), "The lounge has a lot of problems. It has run amok and people are treating each other like shit and it is causing problems."
You said, "If you don't like it, turn the channel."
I then made my supposedly flawed analogy.
Here is the deal. When you said, "If you don't like it, turn the channel," you were saying "If you have a problem with something, ignore it instead of trying to fix it."
My ANALOGY then pointed out the flaw in your response, that is, we cannot simply ignore things that are broken, because SOME things (like Murder, child molestation) are too serious to ignore, so we must fix the problem.
In other words, you cannot just say, as a general philosophy, "If you have a problem with something, ignore it." You would only say that about something unimportant.
So by saying that about my thread, all you were REALLY SAYING IS, "Shut up, your issue isn't important."
If that is how you feel, just say that, don't spout a hackneyed cliché.
So really, you just chose poor words. Instead of saying, "It you don't like it, change the channel," you could have said, "Yeah the lounge has problems but they aren't important enough to bother with so who cares?"
But if that is the case, why is there so much talk about it? Why are so many warnings and temp bans issued?
Anything WORTH FIXING, should be fixed, and anything NOT worth fixing, should be DISCARDED.
THAT is why I objected to your statement and why I made the analogy I did.