I don't see which part of your original comment actually contains metaphors, which would seem to be a prerequisite for such an offense. Frankly, I don't even see which part of your original comment is an argument in the first place, as it isn't attempting to persuade.
The reply is where both of these begin: illustration as a metaphor for metaphor (how meta!), and persuading the reader to take on a belief.
You made an assumption that I don't know how an argument goes and/or that I don't know how to use an analogue/metaphor, and you attacked me saying people don't accept analogues/metaphors.
This is about the same fallacy people perform when they don't accept analogues/metaphors or attack them instead. They claim it doesn't relate or illustrate, when infact they just fail to understand.
So yeah, you ran into the same issue.
E: And yes you are another user account, but since you defend the OP I assume you also hold the same view she does.
I wrote about what I literally see, not about what I assume: I see a top-level comment which itself contains no metaphors and which itself is not an argument but a recounting. Therefore, it's a non sequitur to consider any reply as exemplifying the fallacy being discussed.
I'm able to defend the other user from nonsense regardless of whether I share their view (though I do, most likely).
My recounting informs of an issue, namely not accepting the argument (analogue illustrating the issue and argument), and then attacking the non-argument, ie the analogue instead of the argument.
The reply to my post has the same issue, though yes in a wider adaptation. Not accepting a logically sound situation is the same as dismissing an analogue just because it's an analogue ("analogues are not arguments therefore not relevant"), and then presenting that I don't know how to use an analogue is about the same as attacking the analogue.
Ah! I've got it now. Lotsofpulp didn't literally commit the atrocity of shooting down a metaphor/analogue presented to them (despite your characterizing their reply as having run into that exact issue, which I'll finally concede I did assume to be an accusation of committing said issue) but they did defend doing so. You recalled a thing you see as common, and they explained why it's common, so of course they ran into that common thing, but merely in the sense of defending it, not in the sense of doing it.
The meaning of language, English anyhow, does tend to be however it gets commonly interpreted. I think it's helpful to advocate for communication that achieves successful interpretation over that which doesn't, even if that which doesn't work ought to work. Many things are noble pursuits even if against the grain, but using language in unsuccessful ways isn't one of them due to its nature which favors agreeance of usage.
"Because analogies and metaphors are not arguments. They are illustrations. In an argument, you need to show the link between cause and effect, a chain of reasoning."
Presents that I would use an analogue/metaphor as an argument and/or that I don't know what they are or how to use them, which is an attack on my integrity/character/skills/etc.
Sorry, I interpreted the term "accept" in your post to mean that you were attempting to use metaphors/analogies as your argument (the argument itself being the only thing that can be accepted/rejected).
The reply is where both of these begin: illustration as a metaphor for metaphor (how meta!), and persuading the reader to take on a belief.