3 ms·
"If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates" to which I replied "Why do you think rational
by mmanfrin 11y ago
"If the pirates were that strictly rational and interested
in their own survival, they wouldn't be pirates"
to which I replied
"Why do you think rationality and survival are
specifically at odds with being a pirate?"
Your comment is distilled down to
if strictly rational and & interested in survival, then not pirates
So my question asking why you think this is not following incorrect logic, let alone a strawman -- if you're going to be pedantic about rhetoric then at least know what fallacy you're accusing of me means. You can't just say 'thats a strawman!' when someone drills down on your argument.
- vacri 11y agoI never said that rationality and survival were at odds with being a pirate - that's something you injected into my words, hence strawman. I said that the strict rationality in the article was; the extreme nature of the rationality described. I mean, I even italicised the word 'strictly' in my reply, to clearly indicate the important bit of my comment that you blithely removed to create your strawman. You didn't 'drill down' my argument, you twisted it to say something I never said. It's like if I said "if a person inhales too much water, they can drown" and you replied "why do you think water is at odds with survival?". Hell, even in this new "distillation" of yours, the word 'strictly' is used. If you're a fan of rhetoric, then get on board with the meanings of words. And if you want to be pedantic, I didn't just say "that's a strawman", I pointed out why it was.