> 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK? This is a good example o

> 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK? This is a good example of a particularly sinister argumentation style, and you can see it everywhere these days. It typically goes like this: 1. Take an objectively bad reality. "Citizens of Hong Kong could possibly be extradited to a totalitarian state for any thing that state decides was a crime." 2. Restate it as an abstract ideal or extreme case, ignoring the details that make it bad, and ask why one wouldn't want this thing that's actually good: "But shouldn't people who commit crimes in other countries have to face justice?" / "Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?" I'm not sure what to call it, but it would be good to have a two or three word phrase to succinctly call this kind of thing out. I'll have to think, but would appreciate input from others who have noticed it as well. Edit: I would add that the really "sinister" part is that those bad details are ignored for the sake of making the argument, but are, in fact, the end goal.