The whole point of logic is that is has a system of rules that only guide our social actions. In practical terms, we have many shortcuts, and the judgment of "absurdity" is merely one of those. (BTW, absurdity is not "ill-defined". Find me a fucking Unicorn or Jewgod and then we'll talk about how easy it is to get around absurdity.)
Logicians are NOT the people who run much in society. They are academics and perform their function in that fashion. The wise man makes use of what academics discover, but doesn't let the same academics run things.
You used a great word there, #31, that you're obviously discounting: PRAGMATIC. It's not pragmatic to let people make any ol' claim they want and make the rest of us disprove it, since people lie a LOT and that would completely bog down social systems. Claims require evidence, and often it's the case that common claims have common evidence that is not onerous to collect positive or negatively. But the absurd claims are an affront to social operation, and anyone who thinks absurdists deserve credit is being absurdly impractical himself!