4 ms·

I have no clue what your point is. Reductio ad absurdum is a useful argument, not a logical fallacy. > And before you say “constitution,” I have zero idea why

I have no clue what your point is. Reductio ad absurdum is a useful argument, not a logical fallacy. > And before you say “constitution,” I have zero idea why I would say "constitution" or anything really. My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives, and that is by design and a good thing too.

scott_w 2y ago
> My entire point is that nobody is beyond the reach of elected representatives That’s just stating the obvious. > that is by design No, it’s not. It’s just a fact of life that governments can control every aspect of a person’s life if it chooses. It’s always been this way and always will be. This is why your statements are absurd. When people refer to a civil service as being “apolitical” or “not politically appointed,” it’s obvious that they’re not referring to absurd cases like “a government can outlaw them from having a job.” That’s why I said you’re reducing the argument to absurdity.