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