[SaveUsFromOurselvesBill]

"After we manage to arrive home, said youths sneak in the backyard, pour gas on our children, and burn them alive. My wife turns to me, fingering a butcher knife, and says 'Find them and bring them here to me."

No, no, no problem, that's what we're here for. ---Analogy Correction Central

Both your analogy and mine are valid. In both cases taking a shortcut through a rough neighborhood with an empty tank was extremely foolish. In both cases the youths are worthless punks who deserve to die.
Working on the assumption that there will always be worthless punks in the city, can we please agree that the wisest course of action is to stay away from their neighborhoods?
Or, for readers who are too obtuse to understand analogies: let's assume that there will always be evil psychopathic fanatics in this world and let's agree that it is unwise to effectively run their recruiting campaigns via US foreign policy.

[Taliesan]

Both your analogy and mine are valid.

There are levels of validity. Mine embraces more of the specific facts in the case under discussion. Yours is truncated; mine is more accurate.

In both cases taking a shortcut through a rough neighborhood with an empty tank was extremely foolish. In both cases the youths are worthless punks who deserve to die.

But they didn't seserve to die in your analogy. They only looted our assets. It took my correction of the analogy to reflect the moral dimension of the object of the analogy.

Working on the assumption that there will always be worthless punks in the city, can we please agree that the wisest course of action is to stay away from their neighborhoods?

Simplistic, and therefore not useful as an analogy. We can agree that the wisest course of action is to take another route, given your set-up to the analogy, i.e. my wife and I are on a private trip, there is another route available, our gas is low, etc. But it simplistic to say there is no situation in which any innocent upstanding citizen should go through the neighborhood. And there is no reason to cede the neighborhood to those who "deserve to die".

Or, for readers who are too obtuse to understand analogies: let's assume that there will always be evil psychopathic fanatics in this world and let's agree that it is unwise to effectively run their recruiting campaigns via US foreign policy.

Let us agree it is unwise to craft US foreign policy around the psychopaths, who, by your argument, will always be with us.