I didn't miss anything. I don't disagree with you (for the most part). But the OP's submission doesn't make any of the distinctions you just made. It's a sloppy, shitty, unpersuasive argument that contradicts itself. Here, let me give you another example. "You shouldn't stand under trees during a lightning storm. Trees are tall, and therefore more likely to get struck. You should go in a building instead." The statement is true. But if you were trying to convince a skeptic, you did a really shitty job, because buildings are just as tall as trees. The reason buildings are safer is totally different, and has nothing to do with height.