And yet somehow the GP managed to reply defending drunk driving as victimless instead. Sometimes analogies can be useful to reveal people's bizarre ideological commitments.

yeah, that is precisely what I was speaking of. It is good tactic for winning a absurd internet debate, but doesn't really further the original discussion, and certainly doesn't help educate anyone or build consensus.

To me it is a matter of goals, when posting.

I seek to learn something and/or share something, and think this is best achieved by replying to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

I find that satisfaction of baiting a stupid post then refuting is short lived.

People seem to think reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy just because it is Latin, but it is a perfectly sound mode of argument.

It can be a useful mode of argument, but I am not sure I have ever seen it used productively in an internet discussion.

This post is a good case in point. I don't thinking drawing the analogy helped to educate anyone who read it or establish the appropriate moral obligations of an individual living in a society.

Imo, it is effectively trolling, especially when presented in a one sentence post. Do you think it spawned productive discussion when reading the child discussions?

I mean, person A argued that it was none of person B's business if someone endangers others. I think it was an effective argument.

I think that depends on if you think they are strictly equivalent, on the same spectrum but a different by a matter of degree, or categorically different.

Once we start comparing and contrasting the two, it becomes a more interesting discussion. I don't think they are strictly equivalent, but am open to a difference of degree and exploring where the line is drawn and why.

Living in a world with other people involves risk, even without covid. Driving anywhere sober, for pleasure or work, puts yourself and others at some level of risk. This is legal and socially accepted, so we know there is some threshold.

Another interesting area of comparison is consent/ acceptance of risk. When I get on the road (or walk down the street) I accept the fact that another vehicle could careen out of control and kill me. In the case of the speakeasy gym, the members presumably are accepting the risk.

This brings up the last area of comparison, second order effects. Even if the two Speakeasy gym members consent to take a risk, what about 3rd parties that could be harmed. what are the chances a 3rd party is harmed, and how do we typically handle comparable 3rd party risks? Airborne particulate is estimated to cause 200k premature US deaths per year. How does the particulate from a road trip, flight, or web browsing compare?

If we were so inclined we could try to throw some numbers to these.