This dude unintentionally built a physical reductio ad absurdum argument.
1.It is okay for the homeless to live on the sidewalk.
2. It is okay for the homeless to improve their living situation.
implies
3. It is okay to build a house on the sidewalk.
therefore either 1 or 2 must be untrue.
This dude unintentionally built a physical reductio ad absurdum argument.
1.It is okay for the homeless to live on the sidewalk.
2. It is okay for the homeless to improve their living situation.
implies
3. It is okay to build a house on the sidewalk.
therefore either 1 or 2 must be untrue.
#1 is untrue but it's Los Angeles