> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Would you be okay with the country you're subject t

> However, whether countries should allow the propogation of religion and mythology is entirely up to them. Would you be okay with the country you're subject to the laws to "deciding" to put you and your family in prison for holding that opinion? Why is one thing "up to them", but this presumably not? > If action is being taken against the people who propagate "falsety" rather than against the "mislead", the ethicality of such action is quite defensible. Then show that is the case, and then defend it. Until then, why even mention the possibility? Isn't that kind of a rhetorical trick? Wouldn't you agree this straddles the line of deception, that is, that you're either "just" deceiving yourself with, or trying to deceive? Can you prove it wasn't your intent, but a honest mistake? If you err on the side of guilty, because "it might be defensible to persecute" is good enough for you, wouldn't it be fair to simply assume the worst of you? That's not how I would treat people, but when someone makes an ethical argument, the first thing you always, always do is do a quick scan of applying it to them, when it's obvious that they can't be meaning what they're saying, to explain to them what they're saying.