3 ms·

Reductio ad absurdum. Without endorsing either of the two opinions, your analogies are invalid because they are examples of the above logical fallacy. You can

• bonaldi 17y ago
  They are reductio ad absurdum -- but that isn't a logical fallacy, it's a valid logical form (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm). By showing that the logical consequence of an argument is absurd, you show that it's flawed. Either way: the poster I was replying to made no reference to human rights, or the ultimate reasons behind the laws. He simply said he wouldn't hold with laws that limited what he could do with items he had purchased. And this is a nonsense position: many laws limit what we can do with possessions, for a multitude of reasons. Look at the example of the printing press -- it has nothing to do with maiming or killing. The post's getting a lot of downvotes, so is pretty unpopular, but it's not a fallacy, and certainly wasn't intended as trolling. There are arguments against adhering to copyright and licenses. That they're limitations on "something you purchased" isn't one of them.
  • shard 17y ago
    Logically valid, but kind of pedantic though.