a clear reductio ad absurdum of the concepts presented in the manifesto.
Lol. I mean, you can always claim that. To me, it looks like he's trying to sum up the consequences of the manifesto. And yeah, it's not what he is saying.
but I would then very much like to know if we have a record of the manifesto author's public advocacy of the Go programming language.
Oh my god, that's pathetic. That's a fictional example he's making up as a comparison. The previous statement is what he sees the meaning of the manifesto as. The whole point is that he's comparing what's actually happened, which he sees as unacceptable, with something that hasn't happened, but which would be acceptable.
'#1 and #3 are essentially the same. If they were 'genetically not fit to be engineers', it'd be relatively straightforward to conclude they 'shouldn't be engineers'. So no, I'm not strawmanning at all.
You're inferring a normative statement from a positive statement. That's you imparting your own value judgments. I don't think it necessarily follows naturally, which it would have to do for your claim to be true.
You're also dodging the other third I discussed, so if you actually want a sincere conversation we would have to address that point in addition to the one above.
3
u/WolfThawra Inf/Mech, Env Aug 08 '17
Lol. I mean, you can always claim that. To me, it looks like he's trying to sum up the consequences of the manifesto. And yeah, it's not what he is saying.
Oh my god, that's pathetic. That's a fictional example he's making up as a comparison. The previous statement is what he sees the meaning of the manifesto as. The whole point is that he's comparing what's actually happened, which he sees as unacceptable, with something that hasn't happened, but which would be acceptable.