3 ms·
By your logic, city councils should not host any public Q&A sessions if even a single citizen in the city says they will refuse to attend. That's clearly an ab
by throwawayjava 9y ago
By your logic, city councils should not host any public Q&A sessions if even a single citizen in the city says they will refuse to attend.
That's clearly an absurd position.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- zerostar07 9y agono the analogy would be that if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request or wear earplugs. i am trying to follow the argument eff is making here and i also see that it leads to absurd conclusions but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck
- throwawayjava 9y ago> if a citizen has a request the mayor is obliged to listen, but also the citizen should not run away right after making the request Well, presumably at least some of the people in the lawsuit didn't block Trump. > but i don't like analogies in general, analogies suck It's not an analogy, it's a general principle and the application thereof to a multitude of circumstances to test that principle's reasonableness. The constitution does not and never will have a special subsection of the first amendment on Twitter and Social Media.
- URSpider94 9y agoThere is a built-in asymmetry in public service - what you describe would certainly be odd, and rude, but the obligation is on the mayor, and the citizen has no corresponding obligation to listen in reply.