3 ms·

That's not what the OP said, though. You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works. OP said that THIS law wasn't too much,

• twblalock 6y ago
  > You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works. Reductio ad absurdam is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it. "It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model." is an argument that could be used to defend any law. It defends the concept of law itself, rather than the specific law we are discussing. It's perfectly reasonable to point that out and ask where the line should be drawn.
  • ardy42 6y ago
    > Reductio ad absurdam [sic] is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it. Reductio ad absurdum does not mean "exaggerate to absurdity," which is what the GGP actually did: >>>> It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model. >>> Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through? If you want to label this kind of argument, the correct term is straw man. It doesn't address what vkou said, but rather sets up an exaggeration that is easier to attack and dismiss. Loughla was entirely correct in his criticism.