No, I said logical absurdism exists when you have opposite premises in a proof. In the case where you have a proof saying S is valid and ~S (The opposite of S) is valid, you can maintain validity through any conclusion.
In formal logic, the following proof is valid (where P represents any proposition):
It is the case that P is true.
It not the case that P is true.
Thus, Elephants can fly.
That is my point, You are forming a belief system regarding someone and admitting that both extremes are equally valid. That is what I am disputing.