“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

Re:“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landma... by pseudo0 on Sunday April 25, 2021 @10:47PM (#26938745)

It was intended as more of a proof by contradiction. If we assume that the judge is correct in assessing this as a state created danger, then this standard would also apply to a wide variety of dangers that the government is also involved with, which have never been classified as such.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landma... by soledades on Monday April 26, 2021 @02:12PM (#26945895)

The notion that this reasoning would apply to an absurd (for your reductio ad absurdum) variety of cases is just a slight reframing of the point of contention.

By way of example, assume, for the sake of contradiction, that your argument is valid. Then, by similar reasoning, I could argue that any argument I disagree with can be taken to unreasonable extremes, and is therefore invalid, etc. etc. :P

[ Parent | on HN ]