this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
137 points (95.4% liked)

Gaming

19727 readers
796 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 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".