What they actually mean is rather “these two things are very dissimilar”, or “these two things are unequal”.

I guess in most situations “cannot be compared” could be replaced by “cannot be equated”, with less lingual inaccuracy and still the same message conveyed.

To come to the conclusion that two things are very dissimilar, very unequal, one necessarily has to compare them. So it’s rather odd to come up with “cannot be compared” after just literally comparing them.

For example, bikes and cars. We compare them by looking at each’s details, and finding any dissimilarities. They have a different amount of wheels. Different propulsion methods. Different price, and so on.

When this list becomes very long, or some details have a major meaning which should not be equated, people say they cannot be compared.

An example with a major meaning difference: Some people say factory farming of animals and the Holocaust are very similar, or something alike. Others disagree, presumably because they feel wether it’s humans or animals being treated, the motives or whatnot make a difference big enough that the two should not be compared equated.

Can you follow my thoughts? Are ‘dissimilar’ or ‘unequal’ better terms? I’d be especially interested in arguments in favor of ‘compared’.

  • BCsven
    16·
    4 months ago

    I see it as more like : these thinga are too dissimilar to be compared meaningfully. Like if some article says which is the best tool? And they give you a rake, a network router, and a nailgun. Then you meed context. You can make a matrix of differences and similarities but depends what you are trying to compare. Comparing could be: All are durable, All save time on tasks, All can break with misuse.
    But can also be nailgun and router is bad for raking leaves.

    • masterspaceEnglish
      21·
      4 months ago

      these thinga are too dissimilar to be compared meaningfully. Like if some article says which is the best tool? And they give you a rake, a network router, and a nailgun. Then you meed context.

      I think to OPs point though, is that all of those two things can be compared. The context of the article is what makes them incomparable. But if you asked me to compare a router to a nailgun I could talk durability, power draw, intended function, materials, relative ability to make it through TSA, etc etc.

      Literally no two things are fundamentally incomparable. Things are only incomparable in specific contexts.

      • BCsven
        21·
        4 months ago

        You repeat exactly what you quoted me on…you need context to compare

        • masterspaceEnglish
          12·
          4 months ago

          No, things always have inherent context by nature of being things. Context can be used to make things incomparable, but they’re always inherently comparable without explicit context needing to be provided. This is literally the entire basis of the game 20 Questions.