2 ms·
The word "absurd" doesn't show in the article, that's your characterization. What the referenced article is saying is that to the extent that these things are
by CWuestefeld 4y ago
The word "absurd" doesn't show in the article, that's your characterization.
What the referenced article is saying is that to the extent that these things are "civil rights" issues, everything is thus a civil rights issue, and thus a focus on civil rights is meaningless.
- woodruffw 4y ago"If X is Y, then all Z are Y" is a kind of reduction to absurdity argument. The GP's characterization is correct, and nitpicking the fact that Reason doesn't actually use the word "absurd" doesn't meaningfully change the argumentative tack they use.