Is this a valid use of the Reductio ad Absurdum?

Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.

Original Question

Recently, on a debate forum someone came up with the following:

Climate change is total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society.

So I responded by saying this:

{HiLi}If climate change is a political game like you said played by communist governments then surely the same argument could be made that the rejection of climate change is played by fascist/far-right governments?{/HiLi}

Would you say my response is a valid use of Reductio ad Absurdum?

I do realize I could have gone further and said this too:

{HiLi}If climate change is a political game like you said played by communist governments then surely the same argument could be made that the rejection of climate change is played by fascist/far-right governments that want to disrupt and damage the liberal/left-wing/democratic society? {/HiLi}

Anyway, as such, I never really got a straight answer to my question.

COMMUNIST-HATING CLIMATE DENIER: Climate change is total nonsense. It is just a political game which is played by communist governments that want to disrupt and damage the capitalist society.

ME: You have asserted two false propositions. You have not argued to a conclusion. The first proposition is immediately and demonstrably false. How many trailer-loads of evidence would you like? The second proposition is little more than a temper-tantrum and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate its truth. I’ll wait. But you still won't have an argument.

I think this is a better example of Reducing the Argument to the Consequences. See Arguments

Is this a valid use of the Reductio ad Absurdum?

Original Question

Answers

Want the full book?

Master Logical Fallacies Online