Is there something wrong with this reasoning?

Person 1 is not a sea captain.

Person 2 has a sea captain as a friend.

Are you saying Persons 2 should not say my friend is a sea captain?

The reasoning presented in your argument is logically valid, as it follows a standard form of deductive reasoning known as modus ponens. In this form, the argument proceeds as follows:

1. Premise 1: If a person does not meet a requirement for a certain word (let's call this condition P), then you ought not say it (let's call this outcome Q).
2. Premise 2: Person A does not meet the requirement (P is true for Person A).
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Person A ought not say the word (Q is true for Person A).

This reasoning structure is logically sound because if both premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

However, it is important to evaluate the premises themselves to ensure they are accurate and reasonable. The reasoning is valid, but its soundness relies on the truth of the premises:

1. **Premise 1:** This premise assumes a moral or social rule that if a person does not meet a requirement, they ought not to say a certain word. This could be subject to debate, as it depends on the context and the nature of the requirement. Some might argue that this premise involves a form of gatekeeping or censorship that could be questioned.

2. **Premise 2:** Assuming the requirement is clearly defined and agreed upon, this premise simply states that Person A does not meet it. The accuracy of this premise depends on objective evaluation of whether Person A truly does not meet the requirement.

Overall, while the logical structure is valid, whether you accept the argument depends on your acceptance of the premises. If there is any disagreement or lack of clarity about the requirements or their importance, this could challenge the soundness of the argument.