Comment by quadrangle | Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadrangle | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Reductio ad absurdem ≠ hyperbole

I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says "you think X is ok? well, here's something horrendous that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same justification you used, therefore your justification is no good." A variation of this says, "Your same logic would support this horrendous example, so what is the distinction in your reasoning that would support your assertion but reject this extreme case?" This form of discourse DOES NOT say that the original claim is to be equated to the horrendous extreme, it only says that the two use the same logic for their support and therefore the logic is invalid.

In these types of arguments, person one says badly-supported claim, person two shows the problem with the logic via a reductio ad absurdem example, and you are the only one here who is making hyperbolic claims, namely that a reductio ad absurdem reasonable point is equatable to actually asserting that the original view is the same as the absurd statement, which is a claim nobody was making.

In this case, "Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network" is the original claim, and it's implicit support reason is: "even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it's better than just lacking resources", and so "is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?" is a reasonable question to clarify the scope of the premise. It's not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: "limiting your freedoms for access online is okay because I think as long as you have basic physical freedom over your own body, other sorts of freedoms don't matter as much". An illogical and simply invalid response is: "You're equating restricted internet access with slavery!"

Except voluntarily purchasing an inexpensive product nohow "limits your freedoms." I purchase a lousy cup of coffee from a vending machine; am I a slave if it's inferior to Starbucks? Reductio ad absurdum.

It is not voluntary when it is the only thing left in the market. We are already living in an age where some places on this planet consider basic internet connection a human rights issues so no, internet is a necessity.

Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan. The notion of positive liberties breaks down under the slightest scrutiny.

What you're really saying is that somebody has a positive obligation to provide every human on earth a particular product, presumably at a price that each can "afford." This claim presents several unsolvable problems.

First, there's no objective way to determine what this price might be for each person.

Second, if we could establish a price for each individual person to get "full internet," you must admit that any person might prefer Zuck's "partial internet" at, some lower price. If this person's preference runs counter to my sensibilities, that's my problem to get over.

Third, on whom does this obligation fall? Are you personally the one obligated to provide every human this product? If not you personally then whom? Zuck? Santa Clause?

Fourth, on what basis shall we draw the list of products that I will demand be affordably provided me? And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt, except professor never assigned Locke or Hobbes.

Internet access seems rather high up the hierarchy of needs especially in countries where starvation remains known. What shall they demand next, Ferraris? Reductio ad absurdum.

> Internet connection, a "human right?" That's merely an empty slogan.

> And who shall draw the list and ratify it? Self appointed SJWs fresh out of POLI-SCI 101 no doubt.

It's from the UN.

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/

> While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, states have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely. The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

> The Special Rapporteur calls upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest. In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges States to repeal or amend existing intellectual copyright laws which permit users to be disconnected from Internet access, and to refrain from adopting such laws.

It's also written into some constitutions or case law. See eg Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.

Sure, but let's understand we've changed the subject. If the claim is that a state should not, by threat of violence, block a private firm from serving a voluntary customer, I could not agree more. That's entirely different from saying that someone has a positive obligation to provide a certain product.

Except now it's a right I can expect someone to provide minimum viable Internet for no or low cost.

In England you can get internet access via their computers for out-of-work benefits in JobCentres; there's other Internet access in public libraries; some hospitals and gp surgeries provide wifi.

That Internet is not great - slow, with quite a lot of limits, but it is provided.

Because something is in fact provided, be it by the government or the market, does not in the least confer to me a right. If it does, then I have no idea what you mean by "right."

The fact that I can rely on the existence of high-quality open source software to use in my projects does not mean that I may demand that you or anyone else write it and offer it for free. If I go hiking on the trail near my house, I know that I can expect "free" plastic bags in the city dispenser to clean up after my dog. Their existence does not make it my "right" to receive them for free.

Are you replying to me?

I pointed out where the UN says it's a right. You say that it's not about being cut off, it's about provision, so I point to it being provided, and now you say that's not what you mean either.

I dunno what to tell you. Access to the Internet is seen as a right in some regions, and you shouldn't be kicked off the Internet for IP violations, and someone should be providing access to the Internet, and in England that someone is national government (Department of Work and Pensions) and local government (public libraries).

> Are you replying to me?

Sorry, yes HN apparently has a limit to nesting of replies, so I cannot reply directly. I'm sure that replying a level up is bad etiquette, so this is the last time I will do it.

I will leave it at this. My position is that there is no sound philosophical basis for positive rights (the claim that one person is entitled to receive something that must be produced by another person). On other words, my rights are only to be left alone to satisfy my desired ends by my chosen means without force or coercion by another party.

This speaks nothing of what "society" or one's fellow man "ought" to do. Rights to no involve "ought."

Thanks. That is exactly what I meant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com