Personally, I find picking out the second paragraph and dismissing it as 'ridiculous' is lazy. Laziness because it goes to no effort to be imaginative, to explain *why* you think that at all, and so serve no purpose other than to thumb your nose and go 'gah!'.
Argue the point, about the point and none of this nonsense.
OK, I'll do that. Oh no, hang on a minute, I'd already written that before the bit you take issue with.
Venerating her and what she stood for would make the world a worse place. whereas decrying her and having people be jubilant at her demise and dropping her cadaver down a disused mine shaft would lead to people understanding that there is a widespread hatred of her for what she did and what she stood for.
I just am ot in favour of that style of arguing - the extending a principle to a more extreme example in order to show why the principle is wrong - because it is such a blunt tool. And Unhelpful. And largely useless. different situations demand different arguements - you could use what youb said to explain why Hitler should have a state funeral - or why Churchill shouldn't. Why we shoul;d have invaded Iraq, why we shouldn't.
I know you like it, and find it useful - I don't. Sorry
