Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
In article <17bf6e37e6780b72$41800$3716115$2d54864@news.newsdemon.com>,Explain how individuals today are a "well regulated militia".
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 3/23/2024 3:16 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:So explain how , for example, Amendment XIII might be acceptablyOn 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:In other words the "reductio ad absurdem" argument where one defeats
>
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.
>
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.
regulated beyond it's plain text.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.