Chuck Wrote:It is one thing to be concerned. It is another to reflexively deem it wrong based solely on some airy principle that can not be used to accurately or reliably predict each possible consequence of its own implementation.
In the end, if maximizing the practical extent and durability of freedom of conscience is to be set as a goal in itself, then I do not believe that archiving of that goal is in a practical sense is compatible with implementing a reflexive attitude of uncritical tolerance all self-styled "conscience". Freedom of conscience should not be a suicide pact if it were to survive.
Who should be empowered to decide which thoughts are intolerable and should be banned? If that decision is based on a popular vote, you could well expect your own atheism to be outlawed.
If that decision is to be made behind closed doors, then the potential for abuse is obvious.
The best reply to silly, stupid, or offensive speech is not banning. The best reply is a thorough and public deconstruction.
