Question

...
Jack

Is this a valid use of the Reductio ad Absurdum?

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.

asked on Sunday, Jun 09, 2019 04:38:55 PM by Jack

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0

I think this is a better example of Reducing the Argument to the Consequences. See Arguments 
answered on Sunday, Jun 09, 2019 05:18:05 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Keith Seddon
0
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.
answered on Monday, Jun 10, 2019 06:26:25 AM by Keith Seddon

Comments