Imagine you&#x27;re traveling the desert thousands of years ago. You come upon a party of nomads. You would like water, and you would like them not to rob you, kill you, and bury you in the sand. It&#x27;s very important you don&#x27;t say or do anything to offend them. You want them to treat you with respect and kindness, so you have to treat them as such.<p>But how do you do that? The rule does not cover that at all. But somehow you figure out how, and they give you water. In gratitude, as an interpretation of the rule, you give them flint to make fire. The nomads, it turns out, will use the flint to make a fire and cauterize a wound that would otherwise have gotten infected.<p>Sometimes you will be the nomads, and sometimes the traveler. The rule is really just a reminder to think about this situation at all times; it doesn&#x27;t spell it out for you.<p>It was circular reasoning because you were saying if A is B (some girls like to be called dude), then B is A (you should call girls dude). You&#x27;re using the premise to prove itself, like &quot;I breathe air because I can breathe air&quot;. It provides no evidence of why this is so, nor account for any extra factors (if A is &quot;<i>some</i> girls like being called dude&quot;, there must be a C: the rest of the girls that don&#x27;t like being called dude. But C is never addressed)