The current structure of the credit doesn’t get used up like that anymore. Tesla vehicles are still eligible. Musk thinks removing it would hurt competitors more than him.

Since much of that can be shown by simply quoting things Trump says verbatim, what are you on about and why are there so many random bold words?

But why call that out at all? Why not call out an actual fallacy built inside a reducto ad absurdum argument (assuming there is one)? The poster way up the stack did not clarify at all. They posted “reducto ad absurdum” as if that was the end of it.

I said early on:

There might be some other logical fallacy at play. Slippery slope is a common one in cases where people cite reducto ad absurdum. But why not cite the actual fallacy rather than the one that isn’t a fallacy at all?

Yes, you can use reducto ad absurdum arguments in a fallacious way. That’s true of literally any kind of argument, so it’s pointless to say that. Point out the actual fallacy or don’t.

Let’s go back a few steps in the thread. The response was simply “Reducto ad absurdum” as if that explained it right there. Except, that’s not itself a fallacy. It might be used in a fallacious way, but simply stating “Reducto ad absurdum” does not point out any fallacy what so ever.

And that’s my whole point. People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.

If they’re guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that. Lumping in reducto ad absurdum takes away from a very powerful and useful tool of formal logic. Overloading the term makes understanding more fuzzy, not more clarifying.

Not inherently, no, but it is when used fallaciously. Like in this case.

It never is. There might be some other logical fallacy at play. Slippery slope is a common one in cases where people cite reducto ad absurdum. But why not cite the actual fallacy rather than the one that isn’t a fallacy at all?

Or maybe don’t. Generally, logical fallacies are better used to pick apart your own arguments rather than tossing them in other people’s faces.

Just like deliberate hyperbole is not a fallacy when used skillfully and transparently to underscore a point, it’s the context and the delivery that decides whether something is a valid reducto ad absurdum argument or a reducto ad absurdum fallacy.

Nope. There is no such thing as reducto ad absurdum fallacy. I challenge you to find a citation otherwise, because I can cite a lot of stuff that talks about its use as a tool of logic and does not mention fallacies what so ever, or does so only as part of connected information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum - “In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for “argument to absurdity”) or apagogical arguments, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction”. The word “fallacy” does not even appear on the page except as a link to “See Also - Argument from fallacy”.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum - “reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), in logic, a form of refutation showing contradictory or absurd consequences following upon premises as a matter of logical necessity.” Fallacies are only mentioned further down the page as connected information.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reductio ad absurdum - “1) disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion 2) the carrying of something to an absurd extreme” Again, no mention of fallacy. It’s a tool to disprove something.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi-bin/uy/webpages.cgi?/logicalfallacies/Reductio-ad-Absurdum - “A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity – so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.” Note that last sentence. Reducto ad absurdum is about exposing the fallacy, not creating one. This on a web site that’s all about logical fallacies, and they ain’t saying it’s a fallacy.

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dnp/frege/reductio-ad-absurdum.html - “The Proof by Contradiction technique that we just described is a special case of a more general reasoning strategy called reductio ad absurdum. (Translate this literally as, “reduce to absurdity”.) We can use this more general strategy in everyday rhetoric as well as in mathematics”. Again, no mention of fallacy.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/69916/is-reductio-ad-absurdum-a-fallacy - Top level response explicitly says it’s not a fallacy.

Edit: a few more to pile on.

https://www.quora.com/Which-type-of-fallacy-is-reductio-ad-absurdum-Whats-its-definition-example-how-it-works-in-real-life-situations - Top level response explicitly says it’s not a fallacy.

https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903 - "Like any argumentative strategy, reductio ad absurdum can be misused and abused, but in itself it is not a form of fallacious reasoning. A related form of argument, the slippery slope argument, takes reductio ad absurdum to an extreme and is often (but not always) fallacious. " Here again, the argument might be making a fallacy, but reducto ad absurdum is not it.

Reducto ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy if that’s what you’re getting at. It’s a very important logical tool that happens to be a Latin phrase with a similar cadence to Latin names of logical fallacies. People on the Internet mess this up all the time, and it’s become a pet peeve of mine.

I don’t think OP is right–there’s lots of different layers to issues like this that can be explored–but not because of that.

There are issues that come up in niche cases. If you’re using git bisect to track down a bug, a non-working commit can throw that off.

Pretty much. His advisors have quietly expressed “concern” to the media about a lot of things, and they go nowhere.

Every once in a while, it does. Laura Loomer seems to have been forgotten. That might just be Trump getting bored with sleeping with her, though.

There are perfectly good reasons to sacrifice a goat to your USB drivers. Don’t let Reddit Atheists tell you otherwise.

I’ve found that that comic alone has reduced the instances of this sort of thing happening. Not completely, of course, but when people figure it out, they seem much more likely to post the solution. Randall may have single-handedly improved the Internet a few points with that one comic.

Yeah, I think that’s the best that can be done right now.

It also leads to a different question: do we really need these fancy systems, or do we need a bunch of bash scripts with a cronjob or monitors to trigger the build?

Normally, you don’t want to commit code unless it’s been at least minimally tested, and preferably more than that.

All the CI’s, however, force a workflow where you can only test it by committing the code and seeing if it works. I’m not sure how to fix that, but I see the problem.

A simple reading would be no.

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

In the strictest sense, it only applies to acts of Congress. It doesn’t even apply to states. However, the 14th Amendment setup a framework for incorporating the federal constitution down to the states, including this. Freedom of speech has also been interpreted more broadly in general.

We keep trying, but they keep pulling both of those out like it’s settled fact.

Maybe. The one thing that saves rational results right now is that the Supreme Court can’t possibly take every single case. They have to pick carefully for cases that will fuck things up the most.

Since randomizing the list increases entropy, it could theoretically make your cpu cooler just before it destroys the universe.

You still have to check that it’s sorted, which is O(n).

We’ll also assume that destroying the universe takes constant time.

deleted by creator