Still ruined?

Consider, for the sake of argument, the contrary.

"Thanksgiving [is not] ruined."

However, logically we must go all the way, ruthlessly to negate all components of the proposition.

"[Everything other than Thanksgiving] [is not] [in a non-ruined state]."

Which of course resolves itself into:

"[Non-Thanksgiving] [is ruined]."

Of course, to be ruined, Non-Thanksgiving must first exist and be.

But to consider the contrary of this, as in turn of course we must, means:

"[Thanksgiving] must [not be]."

Therefore Thanksgiving must simultaneously exist and not exist.

This is a contradictory dead end, a logical impossibility.

So to return to square one, to our initial hypothetical:

"Thanksgiving [is not] ruined."

 

If we put aside the merely contingent, accidental property of "ruined"-ness, we are left with:

"Thanksgiving [is not]."

Thus returning us  to the same conclusion:  Thanksgiving both exists and does not exist.  Unpossible!

It seems, then, that our initial hypothetical, above, of Thanksgiving's non-ruinedness, therefore must be totally rejected a priori. 

Still -- and forever -- ruined?

[TiR insists to the reader that the above contains absolutely no fallacies or errors of reasoning whatsoever, we asuuuure you.]