Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 18:12:43 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2c88dff4d7d1a1f7b00f1e08727cdda"; logging-data="3980292"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187BRl0ik+Vlcoye7w9ZXgVnV9ybj5OD1U=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:EAs4HJhXKLUWkCmTd2ljTlXAlWo= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 2347 BTR1701 wrote: >moviePig wrote: >>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. >So explain how , for example, Amendment XIII might be acceptably >regulated beyond it's plain text. Oh, come on. That moviePigism did not parse. moviePig isn't saying either "The law is the law" or "The law isn't the law when I don't feel that it is." It's the usual equivocation from moviePig.