[ccmay]

That argument is what's classically called a "reductio ad absurdum"---the idea that "it all comes down to" the desire "to sell books".

I don't think you understand "reductio ad absurdum". It's not just making an argument that you think is absurd.

It's essentially the same thing as disproof by contradiction: you assume that someone's argument is correct, then show that it leads to logically contradictory results (like 0 == 1, or puppies == kittens), thus demonstrating that the original assumption was false rather than true.

"Absurd" in this context means "logically impossible", not "ridiculous".

-ccm

[willyboyishere]

Thanks for the correction, I actually do appreciate it.
Apparently I have been using it incorrectly all these years, but have never been corrected---(maybe my intent was not perceived or understood )Now I wonder if there IS
a similar phrase to describe the contention of that poster that all the "debate" was really "about" was two Leftwing pseudo-capitalists helping each other sell books.
Maybe "reductio ad cynicismus?"

[willyboyishere]

To add, what I always assumed that
the "translation" of R.A.A. implied that
the speaker in question was posing his argument
or contention in terms that grossly oversimplified
the facts, and in so doing, reduced them to absurdity.
Like saying for example that we are in Iraq "for oil".