Jim,

My response wasn't emotional. Paul accused me of "PC spin." It shouldn't be a surprise that I disagree, so simply saying "It isn't PC spin" by itself wouldn't solve anything.

I prefer to explain the meaning behind my thoughts. Paul complained of "PC spin" without saying how he came to that conclusion, what PC spin is, or anything else. I cannot "confront" his arguments until I know what they are.

But, I can try to explain the reasoning behind my analogy---which is what I did in a very straightforward, unemotional way: "It can be difficult to look objectively at a topic one has an emotional attachment to---that is a fact for everyone, whether the topic is history or religion or a family member. Analogies can be useful tools in putting the situation into a different perspective."

Perhaps Paul would like to "confront" my arguments beyond complaining of PC spin?