No Exceptions; None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

It's true, as far as it goes, that the Constitution does not directly reference what to do in a plague or pandemic. A whole bunch of stuff that we routinely do is not explicitly referenced in the Constitution.

So I'd suggest you:

1. Check the General Welfare clause (Art. I, Sec. 8).
2. If that doesn't satisfy you, check the 10th Amendment.
3. If that still doesn't satisfy you, grab a cohort of like-minded patriots and stage a rebellion.

Everyone, please IGNORE KylieFan.

Aside from NOT being an expert about the Constitution, she's only in it for the clicks; what with being a paid shill for the snowflakes.

Remarkable: in just two sentences, you’ve committed the following logical fallacies:

1. Ad hominem;
2. Appeal to authority;
3. Trusting and repeating a statement of KylieFan_89 without independent verification.

For someone so well-versed in what an “ad hominem” is and isn’t, you sure do engage in and defend a lot of name-calling yourself

An even lower form of reasoning

Well

Now that we’ve been down these logical fallacy rabbit-holes

Anyone care to try to refute anything I said?

Or answer the even larger question: Is it unconstitutional to impose quarantines?

As usual, you haven't refuted my central point, or even tried. In this whole thread, I haven't seen you take any substantive position on the information asserted in the OP meme or my rebuttal thereof.

Here is what I said, again, in my first response to OP:

"It's true, as far as it goes, that the Constitution does not directly reference what to do in a plague or pandemic. A whole bunch of stuff that we routinely do is not explicitly referenced in the Constitution.

"So I'd suggest you:

"1. Check the General Welfare clause (Art. I, Sec. 8).
"2. If that doesn't satisfy you, check the 10th Amendment.
"3. If that still doesn't satisfy you, grab a cohort of like-minded patriots and stage a rebellion."

Got any response to that?

Or any opinion on the larger question: Are quarantines unconstitutional?

Don't worry, I will teach you how to argue.

Yes: You've brought ad hominem and insults to the table, as I've already acknowledged.

Hilarious, yet befuddling all at the same time.

1. It's not ad hominem to attack the person's credibility as it relates to whatever point they're trying to make. It would be ad hominem if I had just replied, KF, you're a dumbass. We see replies like that all the time here on the flip. No perspective, no context, just a personal insult. You really need to learn the difference if you're going to throw around ad hominem so casually.

2. What in the blessed name of Elvis are you talking about? My use of the word "Everyone"? Is that what you consider an appeal to authority? Because that's the only appeal that I made. I didn't know you considered others here on the flip to be an "authority", but it's nice to know we have attained that level in your eyes.

3. These are getting more and more idiotic as I go down the list. I have no clue what you're alluding to here. Maybe one clue... is it the paid shill part? You've admitted to that. It's not even debatable. Unless of course you were lying about that, which would mean everything you've ever posted could legitimately be considered a lie. So which is it?

1. "Snowflake" is ad hominem, and apparently your favorite one. This gets interesting though. While you and other right-wingers appear to use the word "snowflake" as simply a synonym for "liberal," the actual definition of the word in contemporary usage carries a somewhat different meaning. (And who in modern American politics does this term fit best? My meme offers a hint!)

2. You vaguely accused me of not being an "expert" on the Constitution but offered no substantive rebuttal of anything I said.

3. I routinely make statements on ImgFlip which are capable of independent verification. I encourage everyone to do so, and indeed often provide links to make it easy! As for my confession to being a paid troll, though -- not easily verified or disproven.

You’re technically correct! But not in a way you should be proud of.

It’s still a logical fallacy to resort to straight-up insults in an argument, even though that kind of a primal scream is apparently not even worthy of the term “ad hominem.” It is no kind of reasoning at all.

A distinction that makes Fat_Elvis’s repeated use of the word “snowflake” and yours of “idiot” suffer in the comparison.

So, I was too generous in labeling that language “ad hominem.” I guess I’ll use this chart from now on.

I never referred to this as "a chart of logical fallacies." It is, according to the source I obtained it from (source intentionally omitted for your benefit!): "Graham's hierarchy of disagreement."

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

"In logic and rhetoric, a personal attack is called an ad hominem. Ad hominem is Latin for 'against the man.' Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an ad hominem replaces logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter."

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, which necessarily makes insults (even lower on the chart, and which don't even pretend to have any backing logic) a logical fallacy as well.

Hope this helps.

1. see attached. I don't see how using a term that accurately describes a person, or people, can be considered ad hominem.

1a. It's odd that GOP trick #548 is snowflake tactic #1

2. I'm going to go with you not being an expert on the Constitution, at least until you post something that could be interpreted as proof to the contrary.

3. I can no longer work up the energy to care about this point. If you could see me yawning as I type this, you'd know I ain't lying.

4. I'm done with this thread. Go make your money off someone else. I've put enough pizza on your table, and Bud Light in your glass for one day.

Are you an expert?

You're talking to me with that question, right?

I am an expert about some things, but since I've claimed no expertise in this post, I'll have to stick to being an expert about you not knowing what you're posting about, and certainly not what you're asking.

So, assuming that question was directed at me, if you could throw in a bit of info about what it is you think that I think I'm an expert about, it would make it easier for me to explain to you why you're wrong.

Yes, we can ignore a mentally ill. confessed paid shill, serial liar meme wh0re.
Much like a drug dealing child molester, has no standing in the Imgflip or any other community.

Welcome to ImgFlip

Yes, I am ImgFlip's deep state avatar

What would you like to know today, my man?

10A is always the wrong answer on bar exams, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t still mean something to some folks

One of the Prime Maxims of our law, "That which is not specifically included in the text of the law must be expressly excluded from enforcement," is derived *directly* from the 10A. Just because law school doesn't teach that doesn't mean it isn't true. The Founders meant for every single Clause to *have effect* & not to be ignored.

law over life, that's what my old junior high vice principal always said ( :

Start shooting apple. Somehow I suspect you couldn't hit a fish laying dead on a piece of newspaper, but if you want to try hitting one in a barrel, please go for it.

Excellent meme DStroyer!

Too true. Upvoted