> It's a legit logical argument. It's only legitimate in as much as its a category of argument. That doesn't mean it makes any sense here. The argument here, the absurdity, elides over secondary arguments, which is why it doesn't work: Namely it ignores the issue that wearing a tshirt that says anything is perfectly legal, while a thong is not a health consideration, but can be interpreted as public nudity issue. These are two different arguments, conflated with a third broader category (mask mandates, health mandates, individual right vs collective health, vs who gets to decide what science is 'real science', very bodily autonomy). It's dishonest argumentation which is why I refuse to recognize it. You want to debate that or the issues it raises, by all means. Unless you mean to suggest banning a thong is the same thing as requiring a mask. Which is absurd, because were it true, the airlines could dictate what kind of underwear you're allowed to wear. Now *that* is reductio ad absurdum! Edit: Thanks for commenting. I wouldn't have even considered this line of reasoning had you not.