I have been lax�with our fallacy fun, but suddenly some good'uns are thrown in my face. Reductio ad absurdum is not really a logical fallacy but, at its worse, a fallacy support and, at its best,�a fairly compelling logical argument, eg (from Wiki):
- Father- Why did you start smoking?
- Daughter - All my friends were doing it.
- Father- You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?
Reductio�can serve the purpose of truth or the purpose of fallaciousness. Example:
"If we can go into Iraq to take out a murderous dictator, then we should take out every murderous dictator on earth."
As with�the Slippery Slope Fallacy, some credibility is obtained via the logical thread, but the germ of logicality�is�rendered trivial�by the reality and the context.
Attack Machine invented the entirely reasonable and useful�notion of Dilatare ad Absurdum: Expansion to Absurdity.�He presents a beautiful example of expansion to absurdity in a piece on the equating of basic human needs with human rights. In his example, both reality and context support the dilatare. It begins:
LA Mayor Antonio recently gushed, �Healthcare is a basic human need, and it ought to be a basic human right.�
If healthcare is a right, then:
- Food must be a right, too. After all, you cannot be healthy if you don�t eat.
- Clothing is a right because you cannot be healthy and naked (in most parts of the world.)
Read the whole thing. I like it. It's similar to�the arguments I use to crush�all of my commie friends, such as "People need cars to get to work. So why can't we all get free cars and free car insurance?" Or "Legal representation is a basic human right in a free country, so why don't we all get free lawyers?"
