I'm not busting your balls. My original post was not directed at you. You were the one who dug into me. If you thought it was directed at you specifically, it wasn't. If you thought it was an insult, it wasn't. It was serious advice. Harshly said, sure, but not insulting.
Moreover, I disagree and argue like this even with my closest friends when we talk about shit. I don't do this to specifically target you, I do this because I happen to disagree with what you say a lot.
Now to be clear, I wasn't trying to prove Disney was better when you accused me of the fallacy... I was trying to point out a critical point of comparison for the two studios that had not been discussed, I wasn't using the popularity as a premise for anything beyond "They've made more money". You, on the other hand, were trying to add as another premise to your argument that no one you know understands my point... that is a direct application of that fallacy, even if it's "only a personal touch".
Now for fact checking, and definitions of words here's one for you.
"Incomparable - Unable to be compared; totally different in nature or extent"
All my babbling about levels of analysis (extent) and how things are at times completely different and share nothing in common (nature) isn't just babbling. I hate pulling definitions in an argument because it shows an inherent lack of understanding that people view things differently, and because doing so is extremely dismissive. Clearly you're of the onion that everything is comparable because you can check for similarities and differences, yet the word incomparable exists. How does that fit into your world view? It doesn't really... So, instead of just quoting a definition and blowing you off, I tried to argue on the level you wished to argue, and show you WHY the word incomparable exists, rather than just pointing at it as if it is a perfect counter-argument.
Now you seem convinced that I'm wrong, and you're right about all this despite all your talk about challenging your own onions. Arguments are where I challenge my onions the most... I stop and say "What's this person trying to say... am I wrong? Are they wrong? Are they misunderstanding what I'm saying?" Perhaps, you should do the same rather than being as dismissive as you are. I don't dismiss your points, as I'm sure you've noticed that I have ceded on some issues, yet you continually dismiss mine without really trying to understand what I'm saying, and seeing if it can jive with what you think.
Was I wrong in saying "completely incomparable"? Fuck yeah I was. I was speaking in hyperbole but that's no excuse to be wrong. Am I wrong in saying they are incomparable on the levels that most people were looking at in that thread as I have since said? No, not really. Example? You saying you think Ghibli animates faces better. Do you think that's just because they're better, or is it because the majority of faces that Disney are anthropromorphic, and need to be easy to read because of this? Do you think Ghibli does that moment of hair standing up and other such facial expressions better because they just are better, or is it because Disney doesn't actually often choose to animate that large of a range of emotions because they are using simple emotions for children in their stories? Comparing them on a raw level of just "how they animate" misses the bigger picture. It's too narrow of a level of analysis.
Hell, I could even be wrong in that Ghibli and Disney are too different to be compared, I'm not entirely sure. Frankly I don't see it, but I'm open to being proven wrong. That said, it doesn't stop the fact that things are sometimes incomparable, which is a premise you've been disagreeing with heavily.