Liste des Groupes |
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:58 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:"SOME amendments are sacrosanct", a theologism, is what's absurd here.
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.