| | Re: Much ado about Nothing said by Scatcatpdx:I do not see the need for grandstanding Congress critters or corporate wonks need to get involve in this issue. If any thing the free market shroud sort things out by letting a entrepreneur create a encryption service or router that can thwart deep packet scanning. I be first in line to buy it. It's funny how those who worship at the altar of the free market see absolutely nothing wrong with direct invasion of privacy by entities who stand to make a lot of money from it at the same time they tell you how good it is for you. Since you're so happy with this sort of arrangement and don't see a need for government intervention to prohibit the practice and/or at least have regs in place that said entities must notify customers, why don't you just hand over all your personal financial info and such to me. I promise it's good for you and I'll send you a coupon for a free pint of Ben & Jerry's. | |
|
1 edit | Re: Much ado about Nothing said by SilverSurfer1: Since you're so happy with this sort of arrangement and don't see a need for government intervention to prohibit the practice and/or at least have regs in place that said entities must notify customers, why don't you just hand over all your personal financial info and such to me. I promise it's good for you and I'll send you a coupon for a free pint of Ben & Jerry's. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
 |
2 edits | Re: Much ado about Nothing LMAO - Well if you're citing Wiki, then it must be factually true! Do you ever have your own opinions on anything, ever, even once? Or do you just go through your life happily regurgitating others viewpoints whether accurate or not. | |
|
| | |
| | | | | Re: Much ado about Nothing Actually I'm impressed that it even occurred to you check a source that was not directly connected to your investment portfolio. | |
|
| |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by SilverSurfer1:LMAO - Well if you're citing Wiki, then it must be factually true! Do you ever have your own opinions on anything, ever, even once? Or do you just go through your life happily regurgitating others viewpoints whether accurate or not. If wiki is not true, don't bitch about it, fix it! It couldn't possibly be easier!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
| |
|
| | | As stated on the wiki:
There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument. When reductio ad absurdum is in error, it is because of a fallacy in the reasoning used to arrive at the contradiction, not the act of reduction itself.
So were you merely pointing out the logical argument technique or implying that by utilizing this technique the author's argument was invalid? | |
|
|
|
