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" <ahk@chinet.com>
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: <utn62r$3pf04$2@dont-email.me>
References: <AbGcneZpLeuJ12f4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> <dc0tvil26o548mid7gub6olk07da5sprvh@4ax.com> <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com> <atropos-970DBC.10582723032024@news.giganews.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 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>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.

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.