well, it's kinda provocative to come here and tell that the dumbest thing you've ever heard someone say about synths is that "analogs are better than digital ones". where is AG when we need him?
besides, i'm not sure whether you've really ever touched an analog synth?
Ha ha, I heard myself summoned! Where am I needed?
"Analog synths are better than digital synths" is only a dumb thing to say when it lacks qualification or quantification. Obviously, each has its merit and use.
While everyone assumes I'll make that statement, I won't, and never do. My statement is always along the lines of "analog synths are better at sounding like analog synths than any other sort."
That being said, I think that saying that it's dumb to say analog synths are better than digital synths isn't the least dumb of statements. Irrespective of subjective factors, it's a statement that can be supported with certain conditions. The opposite can be, as well. It's only a dumb statement when people can't defend it with any degree of objectivity.
It's as dumb to say one thing is better than all else as it is to say nothing is better than anything else... they're the same silly extremes. While taste and subjective factors play a role, there are also such things as objective factors (such as how well a synth does a specific thing in comparision to other synths, how well a synth functions and sounds in a specific application, etc.).
It's also dumb to condemn a vast generalization while making the opposite vast generalization.
Then again, the title of this thread basically implies that the dumb statement in question is dumb because you believe it to be, so I guess it's also dumb to argue with anyone's statement regarding a dumb statement. ha ha ha