|
that effectively dovetails with the claim i have been making from my first post in this thread that this is not really a philosophical question at all---it is political and within that sociological (as the first generally devolves into).
further, outside a particular sociological/political context, the question of the validity of id is moot.
so i dont really understand what is being debated here any more.
as for the political question playing out in kansas: if i lived there, i would oppose the guy too. the censorship claim would mean nothing to me--no more than it means anything to me here--because i dont find the arguments that there is censorship to be compelling.
i dont think this result (that i dont find the arguments compelling) follows from your arguments per se, taltos: i think you are working with shaky material and have done the best you can with it. i just dont buy it. it is perfectly reasonable for folk who live in kansas to be horrified by the outcomes of an unfolding of electoral procedures that are in themselves legally proper.
ultimately the problem lay with the fact that folk were asleep at the switch, and willard was not.
so the people of kansas will probably have to live with this result and work through other chanels to limit the damage he might do if he begins using his office to impose id as in the kansas schools as if it were science, when it isnt.
and such dissent/opposition is perfectly legitimate.
to dissent is not to advocate censorship. it is what is usually referred to as an aspect of a healthy democracy. and it'd be nice if there was one in the states.
anyway, you are confusing dissent and calls for censorship.
i am not really interested enough at this point to speculate as to why that might be because of the thread. maybe in another one, we can return to it.
but this thread is finished, so far as i am concerned
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|