“Widespread”

Yep. They're both true

4jubbd.jpg (click to show) While it's true that two cities where bombed, 99% of Japan was left unnuked.

Well that's a silly comparison.

That's kind of the point as it uses the same reasoning. 4k6wn0.jpg (click to show)

Reasoning that's inappropriate in one situation can be appropriate in another. Rioters who hurt people should be prosecuted, and protesters shouldn't be. People who committed voter fraud ahould be prosecuted, and people who didn't should have their votes counted.

Actually the idea of internal consistency is a necessary part of reasoning. What I gave you is a reductio ad absurdum, a basic form of refutation. https://www.britannica.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum

Actually it's an Appeal to Extremes fallacy, not a valid Reductio.

I didn't erroneously apply the reasoning, so it doesn't qualify as that fallacy. The absurdity comes from the reasoning being flawed, rather than just being introduced in my analogy.

I disagree. Rioters who hurt people should be prosecuted, and protesters shouldn't be. People who committed voter fraud ahould be prosecuted, and people who didn't should have their votes counted.

Both those are actually separate issues from what we where discussing. Peaceful protesters are OK, but people are giving cover for rioters because of the peaceful protesters, conflating the two.

(I don't think it's separate from what we were discussing, but) on that we agree.