The key fallacy you are promoting here is that pointing out instances of similarity is indistinguishable from arguing that this particular collection of similarities constitutes copyright infraction.
You first promoted this fallacy when you exclaimed "Wow. Those two songs are not even remotely similar." You then firmed up your misdirection by jumping to the conclusion that all music containing elements that can be construed as similar to elements of other songs will imminently become illegal under this interpretation.
Spotting this obvious farce, I decided to refute your fallacious argument in just the isolation of similarity, at which point you interpreted all of my points as my arguments as to why Blurred Lines violated copyrights.
I rest, assured that you will continue to promote this fallacy.
You first promoted this fallacy when you exclaimed "Wow. Those two songs are not even remotely similar." You then firmed up your misdirection by jumping to the conclusion that all music containing elements that can be construed as similar to elements of other songs will imminently become illegal under this interpretation.
Spotting this obvious farce, I decided to refute your fallacious argument in just the isolation of similarity, at which point you interpreted all of my points as my arguments as to why Blurred Lines violated copyrights.
I rest, assured that you will continue to promote this fallacy.