我看不出来那个是Reductio ad absurdum,除非挺枪派想讽刺自己


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛

送交者: ASH 于 2016-06-29, 16:01:12:

回答: 那个叫 Reductio ad absurdum,故意按反枪派解读 2A 的语法来提出个荒唐的说法。 由 doublepar 于 2016-06-29, 15:09:01:

我看到的都是挺枪派自鸣得意地拿来做正面说服用,比如这个:
http://hominishostilis.tumblr.com/post/126289487653/a-well-regulated-militia-being-necessary-to-the

引用:
Another example: “A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.” Now you tell me: who has the right to keep and eat food? The people, or the well-balanced breakfast? If you answered the people, congratulations, you’re well on your way to actually understanding the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment.




所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码: 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容: (BBCode使用说明