Analogies are stupid are are prone to hyperbole. Don't be like the rest of the internet and use them in an argument. You could argue that the authenticator is like a seat belt and should be mandatory. Conversely, you could argue that it's like buying a guard dog when you already lock your doors and set the alarms, and therefor unnecessary. It's stupid. It gets us nowhere.

Let's get this straight.

No one should be arguing that Authenticators are ineffective.
No one should be arguing that attempting to but a system in place to handle protecting and restoring compromised accounts is a bad idea.
No one should be arguing that mandating them to combat a major spike in compromised accounts is a bad idea.
No one should be arguing that owning a Mac or running anti virus software will insulate them from getting phished or key-logged.
No one should be calling anyone irresponsible or stupid for not wanting to pay a single penny more for a security feature that should have been shipped from the beginning.
No one should be down-ranked for being against this rumored mandate.
No one should be using stupid logical fallacies and ad homenim to debate people on EITHER SIDE.

I would love to see a review of each side's argument over the past week. But I think the nature of the Blog, and the fact that this medium is more opinion-based than journalistic means that we (sadly) won't see such a thing.