3 ms·

It is an argument ad absurdum, which isn't an invalid argument though it can be emotionally charged. The idea that "It is okay for a business to do business wi

It is an argument ad absurdum, which isn't an invalid argument though it can be emotionally charged. The idea that "It is okay for a business to do business with someone one disagrees with because it is just business." is equally applicable to the annoying person down the road, to a politically charged group like ICE, or to the embodiment of evil. Using the last is thus a quick way to challenge the notion and potentially refine it to "It is okay for a business to do business with someone one disagrees with because it is just business, as long as they don't cross a certain line." Then the discussion becomes where that line is and if it is being crossed. So a claim that there isn't a line at all can easily be dismissed by using an outrageous example because it is still a valid counter example. Think of it like math. If I state x/x = 1, I'm wrong. Even though there is an infinite amount of examples where I'm right and only 1 example where I'm wrong, the statement is still wrong. Even though the is an uncountable infinite number of examples of where I'm write, I still have to consider every case, and thus the case of x=0 means I'm wrong (at least until I update the statement with with 'except when x=0').

Goladus 7y ago
It is an argument ad absurdum, which isn't an invalid argument though it can be emotionally charged It is not argument ad absurdum. It's true that sometimes, it helps to use an exaggerated example to illustrate a nuanced point. But in this case it isn't that people don't understand there are lines. The point is superfluous, and you get to bring up Nazis yet again in comparison to border control. It's rhetorical tactic, not an argument. For reference, argument ad absurdum is actually the opposite. That's when you take a logical premise to its extreme to show how it's a foolish proposition. In this case, the extreme example was in support of the proposition.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >It's rhetorical tactic, not an argument. It can be both, and it is hard to determine what the intent is. Was it a propaganda tactic to link two unrelated groups for political goals or was it an extreme counter example? >In this case, the extreme example was in support of the proposition. Could you go into this further? As far as I can tell, the original idea was that it was okay to do business since it is just business, and the argument ad absurdum was to bring up Nazis.

Goladus 7y ago

It is an argument ad absurdum, which isn't an invalid argument though it can be emotionally charged It is not argument ad absurdum. It's true that sometimes, it helps to use an exaggerated example to illustrate a nuanced point. But in this case it isn't that people don't understand there are lines. The point is superfluous, and you get to bring up Nazis yet again in comparison to border control. It's rhetorical tactic, not an argument. For reference, argument ad absurdum is actually the opposite. That's when you take a logical premise to its extreme to show how it's a foolish proposition. In this case, the extreme example was in support of the proposition.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>It's rhetorical tactic, not an argument. It can be both, and it is hard to determine what the intent is. Was it a propaganda tactic to link two unrelated groups for political goals or was it an extreme counter example? >In this case, the extreme example was in support of the proposition. Could you go into this further? As far as I can tell, the original idea was that it was okay to do business since it is just business, and the argument ad absurdum was to bring up Nazis.