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’.

  • dustyData@lemmy.world
    15·
    1 month ago

    Attributes and values. The more attributes two things have in common, the easier to compare them by value. But when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.

    But, two things can have all the exact same attributes but totally different values of each. Thus they’re dissimilar or unequal when compared, but can be compared. The cybertruck and a Ford F-150 can be compared but are dissimilar. For all the attributes they share are unequal. A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.

    This said, it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.

    • Spzi@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      I like that, especially this insight:

      when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.

      A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.

      Good on you to say “harder to compare” :D

      it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.

      Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. “cannot be compared” attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.

      The reference to poetry was nice, too.