3 ms·
That's a very poor analogy. It's inflammatory and disrespectful to put a trivial disagreement over investment classification on the same footing as the slave tr
by ternaryoperator 5y ago
That's a very poor analogy. It's inflammatory and disrespectful to put a trivial disagreement over investment classification on the same footing as the slave trade, and it's not factual either. Slave trade was not abolished by the Supreme Court, but by an act of Congress [0] and later by presidential decree [1].
[0] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolishes-the-african-slave-trade https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-abolish...
[1] Emancipation Proclamation
- dehrmann 5y agoNit: the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states rebelling against the union. Slavery was perfectly legal in Kentucky until December 18, 1865.
- ternaryoperator 5y agoThat is just a nit, as you say. The point is that the Supreme Court had nothing to do with ending the slave trade.
- Gibbon1 5y agoDuring and after civil war the Supreme Court was problematic and the Republicans solved the problem in part by packing it.
- dehrmann 5y agoReductio ad absurdum is a valid argument.
- itogglebits 5y agoThat's not reduction ad absurdum. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- edanm 5y agoThat's exactly reductio ad absurdum. Quoting your own link: > [a] form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. The claim parent is attempting to establish is "how old a law is doesn't matter". The extreme example is ignoring an old law that abolishes the slave trade, and claims it is unimportant because it is decades old, which (parent is claiming) is absurd. Therefore, the original claim is absurd.
- vmception 5y agoNobody cares because we understood the point.