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."

Listen to the Dr. Bo Show!

Hello! I am social psychologist and author, Bo Bennett. In this podcast, I take a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. As of January 2020, this podcast is a collection of topics related to all of my books. Subscribe today and enjoy!

Visit Podcast Page

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