How is using the exact same logic of the initial argument in a different way hyperbolic? It simply shows the absurdity of the original in a different light.
Hyperbolic analogies are a perfectly valid tool for refuting absolute statements, in particular arguments of the form 'the end justifies the means'.
If someone argues that some $noble_end is served by $means_under_debate, as a justification for the means, that argument can be refuted by giving a circumstance where the same $noble_end is served by some $extreme_means where both parties can agree that $extreme_means is never justifiable.
Then once we've agreed that the form of that argument doesn't work, it is reduced to 'the ends justify sufficiently noble means', we can move on to discuss whether the $means_under_debate are sufficiently noble, setting aside the fact they they lead to $noble_end.
I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says "you think X is ok? well, here's something horrendous that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same justification you used, therefore your justification is no good." A variation of this says, "Your same logic would support this horrendous example, so what is the distinction in your reasoning that would support your assertion but reject this extreme case?" This form of discourse DOES NOT say that the original claim is to be equated to the horrendous extreme, it only says that the two use the same logic for their support and therefore the logic is invalid.
In these types of arguments, person one says badly-supported claim, person two shows the problem with the logic via a reductio ad absurdem example, and you are the only one here who is making hyperbolic claims, namely that a reductio ad absurdem reasonable point is equatable to actually asserting that the original view is the same as the absurd statement, which is a claim nobody was making.
In this case, "Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network" is the original claim, and it's implicit support reason is: "even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it's better than just lacking resources", and so "is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?" is a reasonable question to clarify the scope of the premise. It's not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: "limiting your freedoms for access online is okay because I think as long as you have basic physical freedom over your own body, other sorts of freedoms don't matter as much". An illogical and simply invalid response is: "You're equating restricted internet access with slavery!"
He's making a reduction to the absurd to show why the reasoning he is replying to doesn't work. It's a good form of argument, quite similar to a proof by contradiction.
Yes? But most of the times an atheist has used this argument it has been an ad absurdum exercise, exactly meant to show how silly the original premise is.
reply