4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

cyphar 8y ago
Reducto ad absurdum only works if the next steps are inevitable and follow logically (an example would be something like a mathematical proof using proof-by-contradiction). The slippery slope fallacy is a case where you use some theoretically possible extreme end-point to justify why the current proposal is unacceptable. Are you arguing that having health credits in the USA and legally mandated exercise is the only logical next step after banning menthol cigarettes? If you aren't, then you aren't using reducto ad absurdum. If you are, then it's trivial to disprove (in Australia, snuff has been illegal to sell since the late 1980s and we don't have "health credits" today -- many other substances bad for your health were made illegal in the US and you don't have "health credits" today).
- provolone 8y ago
  I have not suggested that health credits are the inevitable conclusion of banning any tobacco product. I have posed a specific set of questions about the logic of prohibiting products for heath purposes. You have chosen to tilt by snark & technicality instead of answering these questions. If we accept that the government (or a group of bureaucrats) knows what is best for the health of divers individuals, then why not? If we accept that 30 minutes of exercise is good for health and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices, then why not? If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? It is plain and obvious where this logic leads. Claiming a slippery slope is a dodge imho.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    First of all, you didn't originally pose a specific set of questions. You just outlined a nightmare scenario with rhetorical questions. To your point here, "then why not" isn't an example of a logical deduction. You're also intentionally ignoring that the discussion here is the banning of a subset of products that we know for certain cause many incredibly serious health problems and is one of the leading causes of premature death in many countries around the world. Smoking is bad for everyone, so making decisions on a "divers[sic] set of individuals" is completely reasonable -- unless you're arguing that smoking is good for some peoples' health? I agree that if the government (for instance) started banning high-fat foods that there would be reason to say that this is overstepping the mark. But that's not what's happening. > and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices That's not what's happening. > If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's also an awful example of a logical deduction and actually undermines your other examples of "reasonable" questions.
    - provolone 8y ago
      Many would say drinking is bad for everyone. Extreme sports can be dangerous as well. Individuals make their own choices and trade-offs in regards to their quality of life. We have no more right to collectively compel individuals not to smoke, than we do to make them walk 30 minutes a day, stop drinking, never perform bicycle stunts above 5m, abstain from free climbing, or moderate their bacon intake. In my view, this is the strictly logical interpretation. A little levity in the form of a non-sequitur never hurt anyone. If you endeavored to answer the questions I posed in good faith, you would have found that I am not predicting some nightmare 1984 scenario at the ski chalet. The answers are obvious and pedestrian. Principles are inevitably dismissed in the name of practicality and pragmatism. This is the reality of governance. This is "why not". You admit as much when you speak of high fat foods. From where I stand, it is nothing more than an arbitrary hand wave. It is especially ironic after so many nitpicks (which I do not accept :P ) about the nature of argumentative logic. From this point forward it is strictly subjective sausage making. The US has found prohibition to be an untenable policy. As I understand, taxes on cigarettes in Australia make the price something like $20-$25 a pack. So how much for a truck load? How much does it cost to counterfeit? It is already happening in the US. The US has had black markets for cigarettes for 50+ years. Increasing taxes and prohibiting products does not work. It only serves to dilute what little regulatory power the state does have. Eventually people stop caring and say: "Everything fun is illegal anyways", "Returning to prison is inevitable", "My lawyer knows how to fix this", or "What could be more righteous than shirking authority while profiting from my oppression?". https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/divers https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/divers

Reducto ad absurdum only works if the next steps are inevitable and follow logically (an example would be something like a mathematical proof using proof-by-contradiction). The slippery slope fallacy is a case where you use some theoretically possible extreme end-point to justify why the current proposal is unacceptable. Are you arguing that having health credits in the USA and legally mandated exercise is the only logical next step after banning menthol cigarettes? If you aren't, then you aren't using reducto ad absurdum. If you are, then it's trivial to disprove (in Australia, snuff has been illegal to sell since the late 1980s and we don't have "health credits" today -- many other substances bad for your health were made illegal in the US and you don't have "health credits" today).

provolone 8y ago
I have not suggested that health credits are the inevitable conclusion of banning any tobacco product. I have posed a specific set of questions about the logic of prohibiting products for heath purposes. You have chosen to tilt by snark & technicality instead of answering these questions. If we accept that the government (or a group of bureaucrats) knows what is best for the health of divers individuals, then why not? If we accept that 30 minutes of exercise is good for health and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices, then why not? If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? It is plain and obvious where this logic leads. Claiming a slippery slope is a dodge imho.
- cyphar 8y ago
  First of all, you didn't originally pose a specific set of questions. You just outlined a nightmare scenario with rhetorical questions. To your point here, "then why not" isn't an example of a logical deduction. You're also intentionally ignoring that the discussion here is the banning of a subset of products that we know for certain cause many incredibly serious health problems and is one of the leading causes of premature death in many countries around the world. Smoking is bad for everyone, so making decisions on a "divers[sic] set of individuals" is completely reasonable -- unless you're arguing that smoking is good for some peoples' health? I agree that if the government (for instance) started banning high-fat foods that there would be reason to say that this is overstepping the mark. But that's not what's happening. > and that it is appropriate to compel individuals into healthy choices That's not what's happening. > If we accept that two parallel lines will never intersect, then why should air traffic controllers worry? Not only is this a non-sequitur, it's also an awful example of a logical deduction and actually undermines your other examples of "reasonable" questions.
  - provolone 8y ago
    Many would say drinking is bad for everyone. Extreme sports can be dangerous as well. Individuals make their own choices and trade-offs in regards to their quality of life. We have no more right to collectively compel individuals not to smoke, than we do to make them walk 30 minutes a day, stop drinking, never perform bicycle stunts above 5m, abstain from free climbing, or moderate their bacon intake. In my view, this is the strictly logical interpretation. A little levity in the form of a non-sequitur never hurt anyone. If you endeavored to answer the questions I posed in good faith, you would have found that I am not predicting some nightmare 1984 scenario at the ski chalet. The answers are obvious and pedestrian. Principles are inevitably dismissed in the name of practicality and pragmatism. This is the reality of governance. This is "why not". You admit as much when you speak of high fat foods. From where I stand, it is nothing more than an arbitrary hand wave. It is especially ironic after so many nitpicks (which I do not accept :P ) about the nature of argumentative logic. From this point forward it is strictly subjective sausage making. The US has found prohibition to be an untenable policy. As I understand, taxes on cigarettes in Australia make the price something like $20-$25 a pack. So how much for a truck load? How much does it cost to counterfeit? It is already happening in the US. The US has had black markets for cigarettes for 50+ years. Increasing taxes and prohibiting products does not work. It only serves to dilute what little regulatory power the state does have. Eventually people stop caring and say: "Everything fun is illegal anyways", "Returning to prison is inevitable", "My lawyer knows how to fix this", or "What could be more righteous than shirking authority while profiting from my oppression?". https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/divers https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/divers