5 ms·

Reductio ad absurdum

• mikeash 8y ago
  Yes, exactly. Calling it "irrational" to spend resources on pleasure leads to absurd conclusions. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.
  • exergy 8y ago
    Of course it's a fallacy. One has to draw a line at some point. To me that line would be a way, way cheaper expense than a big, polluting truck. But it seems that to you, if I can't own a truck, I must go all the way to living in shanties/favelas and dumpster diving.
    • mikeash 8y ago
      How do you decide where to draw the line? What’s the rational way to put some pleasures under the “rational” category and others under the “irrational” category?
      • Noumenon72 8y ago
        You calibrate on what people were satisfied with thirty or a hundred years ago, eliminating modern status-seeking. You ask yourself "Would I be horrified to live like that, or do I just think I'm too good for it?" Like there's no way I am going to live as a boarder with another family, but I can definitely make my own lunch.
        • mikeash 8y ago
          Why thirty or a hundred? Why not two, or ten thousand?