It 'doesn't make sense to evaluate them beyond that' if the basic (and intended) point(s) of comparison don't match, as in the difference between an illegal act and a not-even prohibited act. For some reason, that doesn't seem to register with you.
Maybe we should add "intended" to the list of terms that you're unfamiliar with, I don't know. I've explained to you multiple times that the comparison *wasn't* between an illegal act and a not-even prohibited act. It was about complaining about a penalty for an act that you're about to commit changing. Read those two lines as many times as it takes for that to sink in, then a few more times for good measure. Eventually it will register with you, just as the fact that you don't understand the difference between how you choose to interpret something and what the person who said it meant has registered with me.
It's as though you were attempting to compare an apple with a turnip on the claimed basis that they are both vegetables.
It's more like I'm comparing an apple to a tennis ball because of their size and shape and explaining that repeatedly to you, only to hear a series of snappy retorts because they aren't both edible.
There is no comparison there. One needs two objects for a comparison, not one. As you have clearly stated here, you're talking about 'complaining about a penalty for an act that you're about to commit changing' but that is just a single subject, not a basis for comparison.
As far as your further complaint that I haven't properly understood what you gleaned from the OP's original post, well...that's a very positive sign for me, as you don't seem to understand what a 'comparison' is...
The only possible reason for me to be interested in your understanding of something is so that I can make sure I avoid making the same mistakes you habitually make!