Reductio ad absurdum

The means by which issues relating to a specific group and its problems, is sometimes evaded.

Where there are articles relating to problems facing any specific group, reductio ad absurdum is sometimes used to side step the issue (which is the problem facing the specific person or group.) For example, if we read about a child being run over by a bus, we might find comments about how "Trucks run over children too!" or even "Trucks even run over buses!" Well, yes, and night follows day which follows night etc. The addition of a statement that sounds so simple as to be idiotic to attempt to disprove, does not change facts. A child was run over by a bus.

In this case the assumptions surround the problems faced by women in the face of the Family Law Act 2006, and the deaths of children that have arisen as a result of the created family law system. The fact that sometimes men are abused, or that sometimes women hurt children, does not excuse the dismissal of the fact that the family law system is failing women and children, where they face abuse. It does not prove that the system ought not to change. As far as I know, reductio ad absurdum proves nothing. It's an evasion, a roadblock. I hope that our leaders will not fall for it.