Don Lemon: Even Most Skeptical Black, ‘Gay Folks’ Wanted to Believe Smollett

[dvdjs]

Well if that’s the case, why have you been trying to degend this notion?

I"ll take that, in the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, as: never mind.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic to dvdjs regarding
dvdjs not having any evidence for his assertions
so now dvdjs is attempting to change the subject to “immigration” (“Neither, for example, do reports of illegal aliens equal convicted crimes.” – dvdjs) to get away from the topic he has not been able to defend.

I didn’t bite.

Absolutely irrelevant to the topic here and is more deflection by you dvdjs.

dvdjs response?

Actaally, it is a nice example of the device of reductio ad absurdum , used against your attemopt to change the goal-posts from “crimes” (per FBI) to “convictions”.

I cannot have a rational discussion with the irrational argumentation you are employing here dvdjs.

 

[dvdjs]

I cannot have a rational discussion with the irrational argumentation

No, reductio ad absurdum is not irrational

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for “argument to absurdity”), apagogical arguments or the appeal to extremes , is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics [2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. ‘demonstration to the impossible’, 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . .

No, reductio ad absurdum is not irrational

No dvdjs.

What the “irrational” I am referring to here regarding your points, is the way you are attempting to argue your points (with the fallacy of equivocation and your fallcy of ipse dixit).

Not your irrelevant deflection about reductio ad absurdum.