you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It is - it's a super affirmative position. It takes an extreme position within the sphere it's trying to criticize to make an exaggerated point to attack. It's literally a classic strawman.

Your follow up is in the same vein. Its empty rhetoric

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    That's called Reductio Ad Absurdum and is a valid, classic form of argumentation. If you take their premises to their logical conclusion, the result is absurd, so their premises must be false.

    You don't get to arbitrarily limit where a premise gets applied in order to pick and choose which conclusions to stand by. It isn't a strawman to show that someone's premises lead to conclusions that they would disagree with, that's literally the point.

  • source
  • parent