3 ms·
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 woul
by pseudo0 6y ago
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.
- soledades 5y agoThe 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