I like analogies and think they can be very useful. I don't think we'd have any major disagreements over them. (Though, I tend to think of them of them more as a tool for communicating objective ideas, knowable independent of experience.)
In the other thread, when I said "how do analogies work," I was attempting to mock people for shamelessly demonstrating how horribly they'd failed to grasp the point of your analogies. Then, later, I expanded a tiny bit because what they were doing reminded me of a rhetorical tactic (or perhaps mere obtuseness) in which people loudly focus on the dissimilar aspects of analogues while ignoring the similar aspects that they're actually being asked to consider.
It's like, maybe I see a convicted murderer and say, "that looks like Martin Luther King, Jr." Then, someone gets all bent out of shape, screaming that my comparison sucks because one is a saint and the other a miscreant. But all I really wanted to say was that they have similar facial features.
