If you are trying to conlcude an argument, it is assumed that all presented statements are part of that argument. Not hard.
No, really. I think you've got a mistake
The fallacy goes like this:
As a consquence of this rule you've proposed X is true.
X is absurd
your premise is flawed
the logical version goes like this:
As a consequence of your premises X is true
X is also false
X and not X is absurd
your premise is flawed.(thus the logical opposite of the premise)
The reason the former is a fallacy and the latter is a proof, is usually because the underlying arguments of consequence in the former take an irrational extreme that aren't true logical to arrive at the absurdity.
And in the latter, each step can be verified.
Nominally, if the method by which you reach the absurd conclusion is valid in the original argumentation presented by your opponent, it's a good take down.
It just usually isn't. This fallacy is usually another fallacy in carefully constructed disguise. I defend its usage.
Yeah, sure, tell me how that works out for you when you tell a judge that after you buy yourself some yellow cake.
But previous attempts at eugenics all attempted to operate at the "can reproduce" stage, it could be very different to do so at the "How you reproduce" stage.
That's a bizarre assertion. The rich already have generational power transfer, and genes have very little to do with it.
And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have? We're talking GATTACA kinds of manipulation of recombination, not complete genome rewrites, which are so far beyond our capacity as to still be sci-fi.
Fiction isn't reality.
It's funny how reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, and also the name of a literal logical method of proof.
I was just trying to assert that increases in military technology are moderately decoupled from available civilian weaponry. Which I feel can stand on its own.
Lots of things don't need guns to be dangerous.
Oh god, I sound like a gun-nut. But rather than qualify why that statement isn't an implicit defense of guns, I'm just gonna let it stand.
Literally nothing in common with Marxs' philosophy= communism. Who cares if the actual ideas you're describing go back more clearly to Machiavelli and Hobbes? Might as well call it communism, since those were the bad guys.
What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?
Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.
Just like 10 years after hiroshima, atom bombs were a fundamental right, right?
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the intent and apparent results of the 2nd amendment, but we don't actually enable much of a civilian arms race in the US.
Okay, with that bit of context, it's clear that you, at least, intend it as racism, and are looking for a way to pretend it's not. Are you aware of how your broad-based assertions of this sort actually help clarify your racist intentions, and that many people are familiar with people pretending to care about Dr. Kings words while in practice doing no such thing?
Like... we've seen this for years. We know you guys. We aren't fooled. You might as well go back to the transparent racism.
I am almost certain their reasons were clearly fucking stated in the summary, your deceitful piece of shit.
And there's the fact that those companies to a lot of their manufacturing overseas or out of town, and that detroit isn't as appealing a place to build anymore in a bit of a positive feedback loop.