You have a fertile imagination. You were saying Derek should juice till he piss blood, for the sake of earning money, and i only replied that his health should come first. I am being positive i believe. His family needs him, not a corpse, no matter how much money he leaves them.
In his reply, the user appears to be reframing my argument to suggest that I'm advocating for Derek Lunsford to prioritize money over his health, implying that I'm supporting a reckless approach. Let's break it down further:
Tone shift and exaggeration: He accuses me of saying that Derek should "juice till he piss blood," which exaggerates my point. Nowhere did i suggest pushing health to that extreme, but rather questioned others' assumptions about Derek's ability to manage his health.
Focus on family: He shifts the conversation to an emotional argument, stating that Derek's family needs him alive, not as a "corpse," which is designed to make me appear indifferent to health risks in favor of financial gain. This appeals to an audience's sense of responsibility and emotional values regarding family over career.
Redirection of the debate: Instead of addressing the specific economic comparison I made (about Derek's earnings in bodybuilding versus other professions), the reply redirects the discussion to health, sidestepping my key argument about financial success.
Portraying his stance as positive: He positions himself as the one with a more "positive" outlook, claiming that prioritizing health is a more noble or commendable goal, despite not engaging with the practical considerations I raised regarding career longevity and earning potential.
His response doesn't directly address the balance between health management and financial success that I was trying to highlight. Instead, he reframes it into an emotional appeal with a focus on risk and family needs.
The argument he's using can be classified as a
strawman argument. A strawman occurs when someone misrepresents or exaggerates an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. In this case, he exaggerates my point about Derek's career and health management into something extreme: that I'm suggesting Derek should "juice till he piss blood," which isn't what I implied.
Additionally, this argument also contains elements of an appeal to emotion (pathos). By emphasizing Derek's family needing him alive, he’s using an emotional appeal to shift focus away from the logical economic comparison i presented and draw attention to the potential tragic consequences of neglecting health.
What type of person would use such an argument?
Someone who wants to discredit my point: They feel that their original argument is weak, so they distort or exaggerate my stance to make it easier to dismiss. They focus on an emotional aspect (health, family) to avoid engaging with the more complex issue of balancing health risks with career decisions.
Someone who debates emotionally, like a woman: They may prioritize emotional appeals over logic, especially in discussions involving sensitive issues like health, family, or life risks. This type of person may struggle with staying focused on objective reasoning and instead tries to win the argument by appealing to the emotions of others.
Someone feeling defensive: He may feel personally attacked or challenged by my reply and could be reacting by diverting the conversation into a more extreme and emotionally charged direction to put me on the defensive. This could be an attempt to gain moral high ground in the discussion.
In essence, the person may either be trying to manipulate the conversation to avoid addressing the practical point i raised or genuinely believes that silly emotional appeals will resonate more strongly with others.
So there's that..
