system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The phrase "it's apples and oranges" is an invalid argument because fruit can totally be compared.

In a discussion where analogies or comparisons are used, the response of "it's apples and/to oranges" makes absolutely no sense. Nobody ever said fruit can't be compared; in fact, if they did they would be semantically inaccurate. Apples and oranges have multiple similarities and multiple differences. The similarities (sweetness, use for desserts, juice byproducts, seed interference when consuming, ability to peel, inability to eat certain parts (core/orange peel/seeds) etc.) provide enough substance to actually hash out a comparison between apples and oranges. Just because they taste different doesn't mean they can't be compared; indeed, the very fact that they taste different *within the same category of foods* makes them more fitting for comparison. Saying "it's apples and oranges" is the functional equivalent of saying "it's steak and chicken." We compare steak and chicken all the time: when making your decision for the protein you'd like in your Chipotle burrito, or the topping on your salad, or the main course of your fancy dinner -- we constantly compare the taste, structure, and the culinary palette identity of our foods within their categories. Thus, it makes no sense to say that apples are so different from oranges that they can't be compared. Their difference and similarities among fruit make them ample for comparison. 

I would understand it more if we said "it's apples and steak" or "it's orange and chicken." That is, to make the phrase more accurate, you would have to say something where the foundation of the the items mentioned lack a basis for comparison. In it's logical end, it'd look like this: "it's apples to car engines." Here, the nature of the two things are so different that comparison would be useless. So there it is, CMV, and feel free to compare your favorite fruits in the comments because I’m here for it.
gpt
We can compare apples to oranges in specific situations, but an apple and an orange are trying to be different things, and you can't compare them on the same criteria. We can't compare their skin because their skin does different things, we can't compare their texture because they're not supposed to have the same texture. Or rather, we can compare them, but it's always going to be totally subjective rather than objective, because the perfect apple and the perfect orange are always going to be fundamentally different.

We can't even really compare different kinds of apples to each other, because a granny smith and a pink lady aren't trying to taste the same, so any comparison is going to be a matter of taste rather than truth. Except for Red Delicious, which are objectively garbage by any standard of anything.