Reply #190: False. Does no one even bother to read OP's anymore before they start posting replies? [View All]

[apocalypsehow]

Methinks not, given the tone, tenor, and content of the replies to date.

Let's take this slow:

1. The OP's principle thesis is "It seems our time has come to expand and refine exactly what the First Amendment does cover and what it shouldn't"

2. I state otherwise, telling the OP the the First amendment needs neither expansion or refinement - it works just fine as it is.

3. "depakid" wanders along and makes some irrelevant comment about the "corporate media," then opines that he knows more about what the First amendment means than all the "absolutists," though he refuses to define it with anything more than vague generalizations. The general gist of this gauzy thread of thought seems to be that he agrees with the OP - the First amendment has to be amended/changed/repealed to make free speech/expression more difficult or, in some cases, a crime.

4. It being impossible to "debate" the proposition "I know more about this topic than you and every other human being on the planet so what you say doesn't count" (he doesn't, of course, hence the air of vagueness joined to the hip with a tone of condescension), I instead point out the irony of someone who wants to do away with free speech using free speech to advocate for it.

There is nary a fallacy to be found anywhere on the premises - at least as far as my replies are concerned - and if you think there is, you simply do not understand what constitutes a logical fallacy.