Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 11:26:06 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Content-Language: en-US Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> From: moviePig In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:26:09 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 1736 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 2159 On 3/23/2024 3:16 AM, The Horny Goat wrote: > On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000, BTR1701 wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" wrote: >> >> No, I don't. Every time you bring that up, I ask you whether you think that >> it'd be okay for the government to make exceptions to Amendment XIX and >> prohibit women from voting since "no amendment is sacrosanct", after all. Or >> since "no amendment is sacrosanct", it'd be okay for the government to >> prohibit black people from voting (Amendment XV) and allow people to be owned >> as slaves (Amendment XIII). >> >> And that's when *you* go into a coma. >> > In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats > an argument by showing where the logical extension from it leads to an > absurdity. "SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here.