• Senal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.

      Let’s try it this way.

      Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.

      I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.

        You’re just repeating yourself.

        “Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          So, not a good faith take then, oh well.

          “Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.

          Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Ah yes “bad faith”. Right up there next to the Strawman in “Don’t actually have any argument to put forward for $500, Alex”.