More False Analogies - Simply Poor Logic

Najib has spoken.

In a particular paragraph, Najib asked:

Of course, the issue can be extended further - if the grudge is against the parents, why bar the children? If the the disagreement is against the tutor, why disallow the students?

I agree with the point in principle. However, the Romeo and Juliet example that Najib gave only weakened his argument: 

As the story goes, we all know that neither Romeo nor Juliet did anything wrong but because of the warring families, the children is branded the same as the family. And although Juliet father may have nothing against Romeo as a person, to him the family and Romeo are the same. So, if a parent saying that my child should not be banned because the issue is with me, then remember Romeo and Juliet....

Because of this poor example, it allowed You-Know-Who, who always has a ready "false analogy" in hand to counter back with his very own, well, false analogy:

However I disagree that the child should be punished for the parents "transgressions", perceived or otherwise. That goes against natural justice. In the good old days in China they used to kill off whole families and relatives. But eventually some sense of justice prevailed. Surely you wont agree to someone arresting your child for a crime you committed? I am talking about todays world of course.

First of all, the context in good old China is different. In the cultural context in good old China, killing the whole family is "okay". Maybe not in today's society, but it was an acceptable norm back then. So you are actually using two DIFFERENT "senses of justice". Even in today's world, "sense of justice" varies according to culture. Who gets to say who is right and who is wrong? If I want to stretch the example into insanely far-fetched analogies, I can ask: Do you know that in the US, you can make a right turn (because of left-hand drive) when the traffic light is red but if there are no cars around? But why can't you make a left turn (right-hand drive) when the traffic light is red in Malaysia? This is to show that laws are man-made and so is "sense of justice". Even in today's world, capital punishment is still a debated topic. So what you deem as "natural justice" may not be so natural to other people.

Secondly, we are not even talking about criminal offence. Likening a ban to a private event to a criminal offence should be blasphemy. Najib's party example has hit home this point. If it his party, he has the right to invite anyone he wants. Let us take another party example. Assume our Prime Minister Najib (what a coincidence) has an "OPEN" house. By "OPEN" it should mean that everyone is invited. However, it is the general understanding that known trouble-makers are not invited to the open house. Will you then argue with Najib (the PM) that he actually said "OPEN" house, and not "Invitational"?

And back to the Najib (the arbiter) example on Romeo and Juliet. I think no analogy is necessary. It is not only that birds of a feather flock together. But everyone knows a father has a very strong influence on his child and the child tends to inherit his ways of thinking. The "preventive measure" argument is sufficient.

As for the ban on the girl in Perak, if it is indeed true, then it is unfortunate. While the organizer does indeed have the right to ban any participant, the players also have a right to boycott the tournament and organizer. No need for further elaboration.