An analogy doesn't have to be identical to never the less share similarities. I even spelled out the part to consider: Just because two things are bad does not make them equally bad.
Depends on the workout. If they don't target the abs in some way, they don't generally get sore. Though compared to a good workout, doing a set of situps shouldn't make them sore, but it sure does if I've been slacking off on abs!
Bet you he's still pocketing enough money to effectively get one regardless. Just because it won't be millions upon millions of dollars doesn't magically make lesser pay gaps than fortune 500 execs acceptable.
Uhhh, if you don't like marriage, how about don't get married?! This isn't rocket science... They both got married. They both signed the social contract that by default means exclusivity, regardless of what you think.
Judging by how they reacted, they also understood their marriages to be assumed exclusivity, and clearly did not discuss open terms with their spouse. So basically... get some logic skills because your opinion on marriage is irrelevant here.
The same way millions of fucking morons regular non-political people voted for drumpf: they thought, "well all politicians are bad, so it's not like voting for a bad guy is bad."
Most companies have loads of legalese attempting to protect themselves. Contrary to popular belief, that does not make them all equal.
Almost certainly not. Just like click-through terms (terms that are offered only by link with an Ok button) are not enforceable. It's just there to dissuade those that assume it has any weight, which isclikely most people that are not lawyers or filthy rich who would consult a lawyer anyways if they got hurt.
It's almost certainly on similar legal grounds to a cease and decist letter. You're not being sued, you're just being warned that they don't like you via legalese.
I understand how shitty conservative social norms are to those repressed by them, but this usage of marriage as an example is... rather ridiculous.