5 ms·

Because that's just how I understand reductio ad adsurdum to mean, there's a valid chain of reasoning that leads from the initial premise to an unacceptable con

Because that's just how I understand reductio ad adsurdum to mean, there's a valid chain of reasoning that leads from the initial premise to an unacceptable conclusion. In this case you believe that being "banned from civil society" (your characterization) for being unvaccinated is ok, you must accept the same for being overweight. "Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable"

throwawaylinux 5y ago
You said _fallacy_ though. Because reductio ad absurdum can be a fallacy, and just taking any old "logical extreme" doesn't necessarily give you a sound argument. I am not taking anything to extremes as far as I can see. The situations are not 100% identical to be sure, but as I said, most of the arguments I have heard about unvaccinated could also be applied to the overweight. And as a disclaimer I'm sorry to have to use overweight as my example, if there was another equally good one I would use that instead because I worry it would cause pain to people even though I hope it's clear that I don't actually feel this way. But similarly I know people who don't want the vaccination and especially don't want to vaccinate their young boys, and they feel horribly bullied and coerced by it so I speak out.
- Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
  You felt compelled to speak out in their defense, but your choice of comparisons and rhetoric is precisely why I felt compelled to clarify as well and what made me raise an eyebrow on the logic in it. That is to say I think you chose your example, and to make it in a intentionally hyperbolic way with things like "banned from civil society" and "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" because you saw that it would make the most emotional impact to compare to your acquaintances' situation, but that's precisely where I felt it was becoming absurd. Having just now re-confirmed that levels of nasal virus drop faster in vaccinated people to make sure I'm not being illogical, the creation of laws that allow businesses, schools, and others to legally stop you from entering isn't "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" the way you characterize it at all, like banning obese people due to their burden on healthcare costs would be. To me, it really does come off as a trying to point out the issues with mandates by drawing it to the absurd conclusion of excluding overweight people from society. So hopefully that clears up why I saw it that way, but maybe I'm incorrect definitionally. There are always going to be mandates or policies that conflict with what parents, or people in general want to do. To me that doesn't make it nasty or bullying, though they may feel horribly bullied if it affects them. If anything I'd say those feelings (and most examples of nasty bullying I've seen) extend from the acts of anti-science politicization of masks and vaccines, which in my opinion is a great disservice to the public. We now people who now feel like nasty bullies are creating new mandates in a nasty dystopian nightmare world, which I think is extremely unfortunate.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I don't believe it does, and I think it's a fine analogy. I don't see why confirming levels of nasal virus dropping faster in vaccinated people would have anything to do with it. The actual question is the wide scale, end to end cost benefit analysis of all this and whether it justifies medical coercion. I've never seen anywhere that case has been made, certainly not made in a comprehensive and compelling way that you couldn't reasonably disagree with.
    - Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
      I imagine the case would be different for different interests, but "a few hundred to a few thousand people die of covid every day" would be my go to if I were the one making it.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Compared with what? What exact measures would you propose, what benefit will they have and to whom, and what will they cost? Is coercing people into getting vaccinated by preventing them from travel, jobs, etc. going to save thousands of the willingly vaccinated who otherwise would have died? Where are the numbers? Do you understand the gravity of coercing people to get unwanted medical treatments, or at least if you don't think it's a big deal at least accept that many people actually do extremely strongly believe notions like the government staying out of their bodies and medical issues? And then can you logically make all these arguments and numbers in a way that they can not with similar arguments be applied to automobiles and related deaths, obesity and related issues and medical system load, etc etc? None of this has been thoroughly examined, litigated, justified and sold to the public on its merits as far as I can see. Still. It still has not been. There has been propaganda relentlessly pushed out there in the form of fear and urgency and appeals to authority rather than facts or evidence. There has been no room to question things or present different opinions -- people who dared to do have been attacked, bullied, fired, deplatformed, and censored.
        Gabriel_Martin 5y ago

throwawaylinux 5y ago

You said _fallacy_ though. Because reductio ad absurdum can be a fallacy, and just taking any old "logical extreme" doesn't necessarily give you a sound argument. I am not taking anything to extremes as far as I can see. The situations are not 100% identical to be sure, but as I said, most of the arguments I have heard about unvaccinated could also be applied to the overweight. And as a disclaimer I'm sorry to have to use overweight as my example, if there was another equally good one I would use that instead because I worry it would cause pain to people even though I hope it's clear that I don't actually feel this way. But similarly I know people who don't want the vaccination and especially don't want to vaccinate their young boys, and they feel horribly bullied and coerced by it so I speak out.

Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
You felt compelled to speak out in their defense, but your choice of comparisons and rhetoric is precisely why I felt compelled to clarify as well and what made me raise an eyebrow on the logic in it. That is to say I think you chose your example, and to make it in a intentionally hyperbolic way with things like "banned from civil society" and "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" because you saw that it would make the most emotional impact to compare to your acquaintances' situation, but that's precisely where I felt it was becoming absurd. Having just now re-confirmed that levels of nasal virus drop faster in vaccinated people to make sure I'm not being illogical, the creation of laws that allow businesses, schools, and others to legally stop you from entering isn't "horrific, dystopian, nasty, bullying" the way you characterize it at all, like banning obese people due to their burden on healthcare costs would be. To me, it really does come off as a trying to point out the issues with mandates by drawing it to the absurd conclusion of excluding overweight people from society. So hopefully that clears up why I saw it that way, but maybe I'm incorrect definitionally. There are always going to be mandates or policies that conflict with what parents, or people in general want to do. To me that doesn't make it nasty or bullying, though they may feel horribly bullied if it affects them. If anything I'd say those feelings (and most examples of nasty bullying I've seen) extend from the acts of anti-science politicization of masks and vaccines, which in my opinion is a great disservice to the public. We now people who now feel like nasty bullies are creating new mandates in a nasty dystopian nightmare world, which I think is extremely unfortunate.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I don't believe it does, and I think it's a fine analogy. I don't see why confirming levels of nasal virus dropping faster in vaccinated people would have anything to do with it. The actual question is the wide scale, end to end cost benefit analysis of all this and whether it justifies medical coercion. I've never seen anywhere that case has been made, certainly not made in a comprehensive and compelling way that you couldn't reasonably disagree with.
  - Gabriel_Martin 5y ago
    I imagine the case would be different for different interests, but "a few hundred to a few thousand people die of covid every day" would be my go to if I were the one making it.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Compared with what? What exact measures would you propose, what benefit will they have and to whom, and what will they cost? Is coercing people into getting vaccinated by preventing them from travel, jobs, etc. going to save thousands of the willingly vaccinated who otherwise would have died? Where are the numbers? Do you understand the gravity of coercing people to get unwanted medical treatments, or at least if you don't think it's a big deal at least accept that many people actually do extremely strongly believe notions like the government staying out of their bodies and medical issues? And then can you logically make all these arguments and numbers in a way that they can not with similar arguments be applied to automobiles and related deaths, obesity and related issues and medical system load, etc etc? None of this has been thoroughly examined, litigated, justified and sold to the public on its merits as far as I can see. Still. It still has not been. There has been propaganda relentlessly pushed out there in the form of fear and urgency and appeals to authority rather than facts or evidence. There has been no room to question things or present different opinions -- people who dared to do have been attacked, bullied, fired, deplatformed, and censored.
      - Gabriel_Martin 5y ago