Does this rhetorical technique have a name?

>breaking an ordinary concept down to redundant detail to make it sound foolish or obsessive

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Adding humanities to board name that supposedly was to do with history to increase traffic results in thread being 90% worthless posts.

strawmanning
you really think retards would pass up this board if they had dropped &humanities?

No, but at least then threads would be about history and not meaningless concepts nothing to do with anything.

>have a right
>someone abuses that right
>right should be taken away from everyone
I can do it too, mom!

Humanities is only responsible for a fraction of worthless posts. Most worthless posts here come either from stormtards, from trolls, or from people who are just historically illiterate.

>muh stormfront boogyman
Meanwhile daily marxist threads about the virtues of communism are a-okay

I don't know, but the fact that the News is being so casual with its writing is starting to annoy me.

>reforming gun laws means revoking the 2nd amendment
Are you being as sarcastic as OP's picture?

What? Is it an iPhone accessroy or something? You can turn your iphone into a metal pellet shoter

Argument reduced to absurd level?

Yeah, if you put it in microwave for 50 seconds

Strawman. Any argument you have where you do something to make the opponent seem more retarded than they are, like in the OP or like this , you're dealing with a strawman.

That isn't by itself a fallacy. However, a strawman can be presented as a ad absurdum to hide the fact it's a strawman.

You're only supposed to do it for 30 seconds or you'll overcharge it and decrease battery life! Just wanted to help you out there.

Yeah, but you get a higher fire rate.

Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences.

>Infringing right to bear arms means not infringing the right to bear arms
I don't get it. How is this supposed to work?

How Orwellian of you

Having some checks and safeguards to guns doesn't mean it is a complete ban. That would be strawmanning

Makes me think of Kants "things in them selfs"

This, not even American, seems to be a worldwide problem.

News are increasingly partisan, sensationalistic, poorly-redacted, poorly-researched, and in some cases just clickbait altogether

Well they have been before so why again?

Reductio ad absurdum

>Right to polite machine which generates locomotion with explosions worth all of this?

Deconstruction. Or reductive deconstruction.

Is she ok?

...

>Right to use machinery with potential to kill.
Hmm I want the right to use my cars and guns, thank you.

yea car crashes just make you sleepy

Right to fill bags in chest with particulate gasses that convert sugars into water worth all this?

post-modern

>governments should regulate handheld devices that shoot deadly metal pellets at incredibly high speed because the people can't be trusted with them
>governments are made of the people who are guarded by people with access to handheld devices that shoot deadly metal pellets in order to defend them from people who do not have legal access to handheld devices that shoot deadly metal pellets at incredibly high speeds (yet still, somehow, seem to find a way to get them anyway)
>why does regulation exist in the first place

That's a slippery slope. You give them the finger and they take both your legs

You have checks and safeguards.
Gaining access to destructive devices such as rocket launchers and machine guns is regulated even in the most gun free states as far as I'm aware.

You can always move to California if you want to live under gun regulation in US.
There's no need for federal mandate for gun restriction, seeing that it has been already accomplished on a state level.

If you wish for your state to restrict the ownership of guns more, it can be accomplished with state law. If you want to make it a federal law, that just shows you want to disarm people who don't want to be disarmed.

A straw man is a rhetorical device to distract by misrepresenting the core argument. like: “Trump is an idiot because you’re stupid.” The point is to argue AP the straw man of “you’re stupid (no I’m not) rather than Trump.

OPs wording doesn’t misrepresent. It reinforces to absurdity. It may be a “loaded question” logical fallacy in that it’s absudity builds in an obvious presumption. But, of course it’s not a question, and logically it is consistent.

>Unknown
>43-63

>Ability to protect against having ones life shortened by infinitesimally small amounts relative to geological time considered important right by many

Same number male shit that makes Rick and Morty popular. Faggots who's only accomplishment is getting a shitty 4 year degree and watching NOVA think if they word things in a very literal (see autistic) way they will validate their superior genius.

It looks like argumentum ad absurdum but that wouldn’t make sense because the purpose of ad absurdly (or reduction) is to disprove the statemement by pointing out absurdity. There’s notignin OPs example that negates or disproves the premise.

It's called "Being a sarcastic fuck"

The people who are all SHAAAAAME ON YOU NRA! don't give a single fuck about the victims

They love every shooting because it lets them be shitty and judgmental

We need to get younger generations into the gun Culture and to become pro 2nd amendment.
Writing about it is a waste of time.

It was moved here from some other board, probably /k/.

Also wtf is up with flags at top, was this thread migrated? Possibly the first time I've seen a thread migrated TO Sup Forums

Reductio ad absurdum

False, that's a method of proof/disproof where assuming x is the case, y must be true. Y is false, therefore x is false.

Name does sound like what op pic is doing though so confusion makes sense.

Why does this matter when we're all just collections of atoms on a rock orbiting one of the trillions of suns in this universe?

Unironically, Vidya has been pretty good for this. Lotta kids play COD and go "kewl guns bro!"
Mature a bit, and by time they can legally own will learn to respect the tech. It's why I'm surprised the left haven't been going more against violent media lately (shhhhh don't tell them)

So much for superior bong higher ed

Always thought mods just sent threads to /bant/ because they were desperately trying to make it a thing, but it looks like some loser's actively trying to curate fucking Sup Forums.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum ?

A lot of post modernist rhetoric does it too

Its a reduction into absurdity, or maybe a reduction into unrecognizable abstraction

You didn't even skim what you linked, did you user...

...

I know the first paragraph of the wiki doesn't make it sound right, but the term reduction into absurdity fits just fine.

It becomes a reduction into absurdity because you are no longer talking about guns but bizarre abstractions that remove any realistic scope from the discussion

Tis'nt because a "x therefore y" isn't asserted in op. You could try to claim one is force implied, but that'd probably be giving the author too much credit

It's twisting words around until what you're talking about sounds insane or obvious, depending on the circumstance.

Don't dignify it by pretending it's an actual argument.

Who cares if I should a cloud of metal atoms into brain tissue, which is really just a temporary arrangement of mostly carbon atoms?

Stars literally shoot untold amounts of metal into innocent nebula, which include highly complex arrangements of carbon, every day. Is your brain more important than a 10 billion year old nebula? You wouldn't litter in a park would you?

If you shine a black light in the left eye you can read their reflexivity #.

strawman
false cause
appeal to emotion
loaded question
anecdotal

I love when leftists bring up cars, because I can simply say that cars are a privilege while guns are a god given right, and they can't reply to it.

Exactly. The premise of the statement remains the same. There isn’t a logical fallacy here. It’s a rhetorical flourish. And not even necessarily sarcasm, because it still reads cleanly. A reader may try to argue it implies sarcasm, but there’s nothing at face value.

Somewhat related, but anyone else annoyed as fuck by the millennial "I repeat what they saw with a stupid voice, therefore it's wrong" form of strawman. I hear it all the time, usually from lefty friends, makes me want to post birth abort them.

vidya has been a boon to this, I know tons of people that love guns simply because of video games, even if they never buy one or use one, they don't want to restrict them because they like them.

Yeah, a couple of other threads have gotten moved to Sup Forums lately. Weird.

Seconding, I've noticed it too, mods are doing a good job if that is the case.

...

I don't get why the left continues to try the guilt trip method. Only feeble minded faggots blame an inanimate object for people dying over the person(s) at fault. When I was 19 a good friend of mine OD'd, put himself in a coma and eventually they pulled the plug. Who's fault was that? Was it his or the heroin? Or maybe it was a drug dealer? Ultimately he decided to be a junkie and it killed him. Tragic? Yes, but he did it to himself. I'd seriously feel the same way if I was personally touched by gun crime too. I've been around guns my whole life and own them too. I've never seen a gun kill anything, but I've seen a person use a gun to kill before. Tragic? Yes, but you know what else is tragic? How many of these shootings could have been stopped or at least drastically scaled down if just ONE person there was a proper American with a CCW. Police use guns to stop these attacks, why shouldn't citizens already in position not do the same?

reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity)

>democrats kill a bunch of people
>democrats demand gun control

not happening

Reductio ad absurdum

It's a cheap yet often effective tactic, because it can be applied to almost anything

>Combusting fossilised remains of prehistoric plant material on a quotidian basis to facilitate sedentary transport from a domicile to a cluster of people repeatedly depressing various plastic cubes placed on a table, et vice versa, is more important than idk wtf I hate this

N
E
W
F
A
G
Kys

Good post user.