Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:34:40 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Ketanji Jackson Worried That the 1st Amendment is Hamstringing Government Censorship
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
References: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <17bede76861e0687$3579$3121036$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-6D853D.13234321032024@news.giganews.com> <utjor7$2snlm$1@dont-email.me> <sR2dnWhJhaAPdGD4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <dc0tvil26o548mid7gub6olk07da5sprvh@4ax.com> <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-970DBC.10582723032024@news.giganews.com> <17bf7cfbe0e07a61$81$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com> <968927790.732971486.032004.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: moviePig <never@nothere.com>
In-Reply-To: <968927790.732971486.032004.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 62
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 16:34:44 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3667
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <17bfc08a77c182df$37521$3326957$c6d58c68@news.newsdemon.com>
Bytes: 4063

On 3/24/2024 7:17 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2024 1:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/23/2024 3:16 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 22, 2024 at 4:08:21 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> Well, for example, the original...
>>
>>     "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
>> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
>> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
>> appropriate legislation."
>>
>> ...could be amended to...
>>
>>     "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
>> for *CAPITAL* crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
>> article by appropriate legislation."
>>
>> ...or, if you're longing for a diversionary straw-man, to...
>>
>>     "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
>> for *NEGRO ANCESTRY* whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
>> shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
>> jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this
>> article by appropriate legislation."
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Did you have a stroke?

Yes, though more of the pen than of inspiration.