> People forget Carlin was a comedian.
That would seem to include you?
That would seem to include you?
The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.
I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making?
To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?