Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: NoBody Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Inconvenient lefties Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 09:38:27 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <17c37b6c29057425$4757$3037545$10d55a65@news.newsdemon.com> <25Ccnb-dnerIwo37nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3845f233a098e$3282$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <0B2dnfnk4IawGI37nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 13:38:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae93369674d7abc83092727db4f8d031"; logging-data="2947738"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QugdPBfwykWJvRjpoWK4+WH6aoE4nlnI=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:xSxiZ6FCaYx7p4XrTcPPwweFg58= X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240407-2, 4/7/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 2898 On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:41:16 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: >In article <17c3b829d977a4bb$361$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com>, > moviePig wrote: > >> On 4/5/2024 7:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> > On Apr 5, 2024 at 3:57:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" wrote: >> > >> >> On 4/5/2024 4:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote: >> >>> moviePig wrote: > >> >>>> What *opinion* -- of anything anywhere -- can't be contradicted? Fyi, >> >>>> *that* would be a violation of 'free speech'... >> >>> >> >>> No one's muzzling or prohibiting you from making contradictory >> >>> statements regarding the SCOTUS ruling. However, your right to free >> >>> speech doesn't immunize you from being wrong or bar others from pointing >> >>> out your wrongness. >> >> >> >> ...where "wrongness" means "of differing opinion". >> > >> > You can have an opinion that SCOTUS decided wrongly and wish it had made a >> > different ruling but you can't have an opinion that the law is other than >> > it is. >> >> The 'law' is what SCOTUS has opinions about. I can have *my* opinion >> about either or both. Therein, the only "wrong" would be a misquoting. > >No, the law is what it is and it's not what you claim. You can have your >own opinions but you can't have your own facts. And you've just pointed out the problem with today's libs. They insist that facts don't exist and their opinion is reality. A man can be a woman is the perfect example of this.