You’re assuming that there would, in fact, actually be a debate on “censorship.” There wouldn’t be; any more than Girolamo Savonarola would be able to debate the truth that the church of his time espoused. It’s beyond them to be able to debate what - to them - is immutable, unquestionable truth. To give any other view a forum is, to them…
You’re assuming that there would, in fact, actually be a debate on “censorship.” There wouldn’t be; any more than Girolamo Savonarola would be able to debate the truth that the church of his time espoused. It’s beyond them to be able to debate what - to them - is immutable, unquestionable truth. To give any other view a forum is, to them, obvious heresy. And, of course, we all know what must be done to heretics.
Actually, I’m assuming that there would not be a debate. That it would not be likely sanctimonious judges, for precisely the reasons you described, would agree. Ideology bordering on religion need not be defended - perhaps since the very act of defending would force them to find logical reasons for its defense. Difficult to do when a belief system becomes an article of unblinking faith with no proof required.
My proposition was based solely on publicly exposing these judges as incapable of logically arguing their own position. And how cool would it be for intelligent students to do it..
You’re assuming that there would, in fact, actually be a debate on “censorship.” There wouldn’t be; any more than Girolamo Savonarola would be able to debate the truth that the church of his time espoused. It’s beyond them to be able to debate what - to them - is immutable, unquestionable truth. To give any other view a forum is, to them, obvious heresy. And, of course, we all know what must be done to heretics.
Actually, I’m assuming that there would not be a debate. That it would not be likely sanctimonious judges, for precisely the reasons you described, would agree. Ideology bordering on religion need not be defended - perhaps since the very act of defending would force them to find logical reasons for its defense. Difficult to do when a belief system becomes an article of unblinking faith with no proof required.
My proposition was based solely on publicly exposing these judges as incapable of logically arguing their own position. And how cool would it be for intelligent students to do it..