  Sometimes he makes it urlLink just too damn easy : Reductio ad absurdum is a childish game. The fact that a minimum wage of $100/hour is ridiculous doesn't mean that a minimum wage of $7/hour is ridiculous.
This is why God gave us brains: to make judgments about how far to take things and how to balance competing interests against each other. Insisting on a minimum level of habitability is partly an economic decision — which explains why color TVs aren't mandated — but partly a matter of both convenience and simple human decency — which explains why hot water and lack of cockroaches are. I'm really tired of reductio arguments. urlLink Reductio ad absurdum is not a childish game, moron -- it's a rule of logic !
Obviously that's news to you, since you apparently don't know what the concept means. Neither your minimum wage nor habitability examples are even in the same solar system as true reductio arguments. Slippery slope arguments, perhaps -- but reductio? I'd hate to think what your Logic 101 grade was in college. Here's a reductio ad absurdum argument, Kevster...pay attention: 1. You favor raising the minimum wage.
2. You want to help low-skilled workers. 3. Raising the minimum wage laws raises unemployment among low-skilled workers. 4. Therefore you oppose raising the minimum wage. #1 is the opposite of #4, an impossibility. Since #3 is an axiom, you must abandon either #1 or #2. Assuming you want to hold #2 fixed, the only possible solution is to abandon #1. Yes, Kevster, I can see why you are tired of reductio arguments. But they suit me just fine, thank you very much... urlLink 
