I don't understand your comparison here at all.
Imagine that the thread is called "Causes for hanging suicides". If you take into account the factor that there is basically no causal connection between hanging suicides and the US spending on science, you have to conclude that the US spending on science doesn't really seem to be related to hanging suicides, but if you just look at the number of hanging suicides and the US spending on science and ignore absolutely everything else, it might seem like those two are related in some way because they show an extremely similar development over time. Therefore, if you want your conclusion to be that the US spending on science and the number of hanging suicides are related, you have to ignore all the other data that contradicts the conclusion that you want to reach.
Similarly, you can choose to redefine the term "strictly better" in such a way that it will mean what you need it to mean for your preferred conclusion to be correct.
The comparison was admittedly poor, but unfortunately, all the concrete real life examples that I could think of where people have actually redefined terms to mean something else so that they can reach the kind of conclusions they want to reach were pretty RSP-y.