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.
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.
No one said you would.
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.
You’re just repeating yourself.
“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.
So, not a good faith take then, oh well.
Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.
Ah yes “bad faith”. Right up there next to the Strawman in “Don’t actually have any argument to put forward for $500, Alex”.