3 ms·

(Fail)

• nickff 3y ago
  The parent is obviously engaging in reductio ad absurdum, which is not a logical fallacy. Where did you get the impression that they were creating a strawman, or engaging in whataboutism?
  • jraph 3y ago
    It does not look like reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum would be more like "Assume X. [...]. Then false. Therefore, X can't be true." It looks like an instance of the slippery slope fallacy - kind of. ("4 days? What next? 0?" - more like "of course people are happier working less, so what?" though)
    • nickff 3y ago
      The root comment never implied that a zero or one day work-week was the inevitable consequence of the four-day work-week, so I don't think it was a slippery slope argument. Their argument seemed more like a reductio ad absurdum, because they took the basic subject of the article to an extreme, and asked why not.