Post #1845510 · Elektrine

2026-04-30 19:22 UTC

What a nonsensical point. Since you like links; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum "form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that following the logic of a contrary proposition or argument would lead to absurdity" I need to add You are setting up a false equivalence. There is a vast difference between a baseless, unprovable fantasy (like alien clones) and evaluating a public figure's actions based on a well-documented history of psychological projection. When someone constantly accuses their opponents of staging events and has a documented history of projection, it creates a lack of trust. The reason people question the narrative is because of that history, not because they are entertaining fantasies about the Matrix or alien clones. Equating a discussion about someone's known behavioral patterns to science fiction doesn't address the core issue of trust.

Replies (1)

@FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2026-04-30 19:32

What about this point is nonsense? >When you put ‘could have’ in front of something you can describe any situation that isn’t explicitly ruled out. Saying something 'could have' happened isn't saying anything useful. It's like using the phrase 'some people say' to state a position. You can find ANY kind of argument said by some people. It's a weasel phrase. Anything which is possible, that isn't explicitly ruled out by the evidence, 'could have' happened. As far as your wiki link. *reductio* involves assuming the **contrary** of a claim and showing that it leads to absurdity or contradiction, thereby proving the original claim. I didn't assume the contrary of their claim nor was I trying to prove their original claim (I agreed that it 'could have' happened). I was taking the same premise ("could have") and showing that you can extend it to other fantastical scenarios. This is not formal *reductio*, it is a demonstration of how a weak modal standard ("could have") licenses absurdities.

Open ##1845511