[jjice]

> then the state should provide opportunities for them so that they can continue their education

I get what you mean, but saying that something _should_ be the case in response to not liking it doesn’t really make sense since that’s the reason it’s popular in the first place. States don’t do this, so that’s part of why online schooling is valuable.

I agree that online school isn’t as quality as in person (in my experience), but it gives a ton of flexibility to those who can’t commute (due to time or cost) and allows those people to possibly get an education when they otherwise couldn’t.

I wonder if there’s a formal term for this kind of argument (would love to know because I see it a lot).

[gorpy7]

It’s known as the ricky bobby theory.

[scp3125]

The formal term is irony, because what they are presenting is actually a "Reductio ad absurdum", but they don't understand why their argument is absurd.

If you want a case and point of this, imagine a comedian proposing this idea dripping with sarcasm and clever little jokes, sort of what John Oliver does. The overall absurdity would be obvious, and everyone would understand the suggestion is a bad idea, with a little bit of honey to go with the vinegar.

The people often presenting this sort of unintentionally ironic argument don't seem to recognize the idiocy or exclusivity of the thing they're suggesting. Lacking understanding of the absurdity of the situation is the definition of their ignorance, because the burden of understanding and proof are on the person presenting the argument, not the audience. (Everyone is ignorant in some way, and nobody is even close to knowing everything. You're being dramatic if you really think that way, even for a second.)