3 ms·

Your last example is a reductio ad absurdum. It is really easy to say that overcompensation for a mistake is a bad thing when you are on the side who did the i

Your last example is a reductio ad absurdum. It is really easy to say that overcompensation for a mistake is a bad thing when you are on the side who did the initial mistake. A white man in tech, or a citizen of a 1st world industrialized country which grew as an economic behemoth by polluting the world without thinking of the consequences for 50 years. People gets easily, really easily used to their good conditions and privileges, especially if their real cost is somehow hidden and at the expense of others. It is part of the human nature in the end, but that doesn't mean it is "right".

bawolff 6y ago
> reductio ad absurdum How? I can see a reasonable argument that its not a fiting metaphor, but i don't see how you can say its absurd, since there clearly exist countries that use capital punishment for homocide. Edit: Also to be clear, reductio ad absurdum is a positive thing to say about someone's argument. It is not a fallacy.
- darkwater 6y ago
  Well it's an ad absurdum in my opinion because the moral judgement applied to capital punishment it's radically different from the one used to judge overcompensation in other scenarios. Taking away benefits cannot be compared with taking away a life. Otherwise you could argue that prison is not the right answer to certain crimes because there could be death penalty for a atrocious enough crime.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > Well it's an ad absurdum in my opinion because the moral judgement applied to capital punishment it's radically different from the one used to judge overcompensation in other scenarios. That's not what reductio ad absurdum (fancy latin for basically proof by contradiction) means. You're claiming that the comparison is inapropriate. reductio ad absurdum means that the comparison is good, but the thing being compared to is rediculous, and since the rediculous thing is the same as the main thing, the main thing must also be rediculous, and therefor false. > Taking away benefits cannot be compared with taking away a life. Why not? I don't see anything inherently contradictory in doing so. Whether or not the comparison is compelling is a separate question. > Otherwise you could argue that prison is not the right answer to certain crimes because there could be death penalty for a atrocious enough crime. Yes you could. Lots of people do. I don't support the death penalty myself, but there certainly exist people who do and its a practise that is still extant in some parts of the world.
    - darkwater 6y ago
      > That's not what reductio ad absurdum (fancy latin for basically proof by contradiction) means. You're claiming that the comparison is inapropriate. reductio ad absurdum means that the comparison is good, but the thing being compared to is rediculous, and since the rediculous thing is the same as the main thing, the main thing must also be rediculous, and therefor false. Claiming that overcompensation can be brought to the extreme of justifying death penalty to me is absurd, that's why I said that. But I understand that I may be wrong so, definitions a part, to me it's still comparing apples to oranges. And while oranges may be acceptable, apples definitely are not.
gkwbenton 6y ago
Since this seems to be the majority opinion among Google millionaires, the solution seems really simple: Give away your money and live on the same wages as the oppressed classes. They don't? Well, then they are hypocrites who want other people to subsidize their fantasies.

bawolff 6y ago

> reductio ad absurdum How? I can see a reasonable argument that its not a fiting metaphor, but i don't see how you can say its absurd, since there clearly exist countries that use capital punishment for homocide. Edit: Also to be clear, reductio ad absurdum is a positive thing to say about someone's argument. It is not a fallacy.

darkwater 6y ago
Well it's an ad absurdum in my opinion because the moral judgement applied to capital punishment it's radically different from the one used to judge overcompensation in other scenarios. Taking away benefits cannot be compared with taking away a life. Otherwise you could argue that prison is not the right answer to certain crimes because there could be death penalty for a atrocious enough crime.
- bawolff 6y ago
  > Well it's an ad absurdum in my opinion because the moral judgement applied to capital punishment it's radically different from the one used to judge overcompensation in other scenarios. That's not what reductio ad absurdum (fancy latin for basically proof by contradiction) means. You're claiming that the comparison is inapropriate. reductio ad absurdum means that the comparison is good, but the thing being compared to is rediculous, and since the rediculous thing is the same as the main thing, the main thing must also be rediculous, and therefor false. > Taking away benefits cannot be compared with taking away a life. Why not? I don't see anything inherently contradictory in doing so. Whether or not the comparison is compelling is a separate question. > Otherwise you could argue that prison is not the right answer to certain crimes because there could be death penalty for a atrocious enough crime. Yes you could. Lots of people do. I don't support the death penalty myself, but there certainly exist people who do and its a practise that is still extant in some parts of the world.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    > That's not what reductio ad absurdum (fancy latin for basically proof by contradiction) means. You're claiming that the comparison is inapropriate. reductio ad absurdum means that the comparison is good, but the thing being compared to is rediculous, and since the rediculous thing is the same as the main thing, the main thing must also be rediculous, and therefor false. Claiming that overcompensation can be brought to the extreme of justifying death penalty to me is absurd, that's why I said that. But I understand that I may be wrong so, definitions a part, to me it's still comparing apples to oranges. And while oranges may be acceptable, apples definitely are not.

gkwbenton 6y ago

Since this seems to be the majority opinion among Google millionaires, the solution seems really simple: Give away your money and live on the same wages as the oppressed classes. They don't? Well, then they are hypocrites who want other people to subsidize their fantasies.