Then why not point out the flaw in the argument instead of gesturing vaguely at a metaphor.
It seems you only want to go after points like that instead of engaging with the central point of anyone's actual arguments. Reducing every argument to a lab on "it's last legs", or a mismatch in a metaphor that's not central to the point being made.
If you want to argue to quiet that little voice in your head I suppose it might work, but if you actually care about the truth of the matter or even just understanding why people are saying what they're saying then you've lost the plot entirely.
Here I can spell it out for you. The second sentence from my first post:
> malice from those in power isn't necessarily something we can always expect to protect against, and at most only mitigate.
That's the central point/argument. To drag out the conclusion here, do we even want government institutions that continue to function once the executive pulls funding from them? Ignoring whether it should be expected, are we really at a point where we are saying "look I know I intentionally pulled the funding but I want it to keep working anyway!"
By hey if you want to go back to speaking to the ad homs (of which I've delivered many that you clearly deserve at this point), or continuing to fail to understand metaphors, be my guest, but don't pretend you're actually engaging with the argument.
It seems you only want to go after points like that instead of engaging with the central point of anyone's actual arguments. Reducing every argument to a lab on "it's last legs", or a mismatch in a metaphor that's not central to the point being made.
If you want to argue to quiet that little voice in your head I suppose it might work, but if you actually care about the truth of the matter or even just understanding why people are saying what they're saying then you've lost the plot entirely.