[mdszy]

So are you saying you're so quick to argue against points you might agree with because of this fallacy you're proposing? Or do you only use it to discredit anyone you disagree with by providing an absurd counterexample that actively insults the intelligence of the person you're talking to?

[naasking]

I agree it's an "absurd counterexample". That's the whole point of a reductio ad absurdum. It shows the fallacy at the core of the argument with which you whole heartedly agreed. Precision is important in ethics.

Furthermore, even if I were to be maximally charitable in interpreting the argument as "damaging a person is typically morally more serious than damaging an object, and psychologically damaging a person is typically worse than physically damaging an object", not everyone would even agree with that, contra your post. I don't think you appreciate how broad ethics is as a topic; virtue ethics and deontological ethics both dispute the premises from which this argument is constructed.

Finally, discrediting an argument you agreed with does not somehow discredit or insult you as a person, so not sure where you got that from.

[mdszy]

Assuming that I'm so stupid as to honestly believe that a papercut is equivalent to burning down a store is absolutely an insult to intelligence.

You'll find that people are more likely to engage with you when you don't treat them like an absolute idiot.