> My point was that 20 years ago, there are a hell of a lot of people that would have made that argument. I understand that's your point. And policy reflected

> My point was that 20 years ago, there are a hell of a lot of people that would have made that argument. I understand that's your point. And policy reflected that majority opinion back then. But, it was wrong, and we fixed it. That's fine. That's how things should work. > Your proposed policy - which as far as I can tell simplifies to "ban advocating for things that a supermajority of the population finds distasteful" I'm making no policy proposals. I'm saying society is justified in making moral decisions via policy, and in many cases is ethically obligated to do so. I'm saying that a blanket position of moral agnosticism by government (which is, as far as I can tell, what you're suggesting) is naïve in the best case, and actually actively unethical in the worst case, when that position prevents a society from protecting itself from disease. We still have courts even though there is the possibility of convicting the innocent, a society without a justice system is unworkable. In the same way, we still have the right and responsibility to make policy on moral and ethical grounds even though we might choose incorrectly, a society without that ability is unworkable.