Reductio ad absurdem ≠ hyperbole<p>I am not the poster, but I abhor how people get offended over reductio ad absurdem. The argument says &quot;you think X is ok? well, here&#x27;s something <i>horrendous</i> that we all would agree is horrendous that is based on the same <i>justification</i> you used, therefore your justification is no good.&quot; A variation of this says, &quot;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?&quot; 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 <i>logic</i> for their support and therefore the logic is invalid.<p>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 <i>only</i> 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.<p>In this case, &quot;Internet.org is okay because a limited, restricted network is better than no network&quot; is the original claim, and it&#x27;s <i>implicit</i> support reason is: &quot;even if your freedoms and possibilities are limited, it&#x27;s better than just lacking resources&quot;, and so &quot;is it better to be a slave (and get fed and have shelter etc) than to be poor?&quot; is a <i>reasonable</i> question to clarify the scope of the premise. It&#x27;s not saying they are equitable. One of many possible logical responses could be: &quot;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&#x27;t matter as much&quot;. An illogical and simply invalid response is: &quot;You&#x27;re equating restricted internet access with slavery!&quot;