<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Yes to Freedom &#187; Truth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yestofreedom.org/tag/truth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yestofreedom.org</link>
	<description>On the protection of freedom in fiction</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:42:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Logic and Censorship</title>
		<link>http://yestofreedom.org/2009/09/24/logic-and-censorship/</link>
		<comments>http://yestofreedom.org/2009/09/24/logic-and-censorship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Azarius</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equality Now]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reasoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Truth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yestofreedom.org/?p=135</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Browsing through the comments on a recent post at Sankaku Complex that featured Yes to Feedom, I stumbled across these words of wisdom: Actualy [sic] by all logical means. Equality should support hentai as hard as they could. But they don&#8217;t think logicaly [sic] do they? So now, do radical feminists think &#8220;logically&#8221;? The normal, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Browsing through the comments on <a href="http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/09/24/equality-now-to-dpj-you-must-ban-hentai/">a recent post at Sankaku Complex</a> that featured <em>Yes to Feedom</em>, I stumbled across these words of wisdom:</p>
<blockquote><p>Actualy [<em>sic</em>] by all logical means.<br />
Equality should support hentai as hard as they could.</p>
<p>But they don&#8217;t think logicaly [<em>sic</em>] do they?</p></blockquote>
<p>So now, do radical feminists think &#8220;logically&#8221;? The normal, reactionary answer of most readers of this very post would be that &#8220;such people can&#8217;t be logical&#8221;, that they &#8220;obviously are acting on the impulse of emotion&#8221;.</p>
<p>I beg to differ. Most women &#8211; and men &#8211; that militate among organisations such as Equality Now, the very kind Yes to Freedom is fighting against, are in no way short of intelligence and logic. Equality Now&#8217;s past campaigns hint to this quite conclusively.</p>
<p><span id="more-135"></span></p>
<p>But then, why would they go astray to the point of launching an attempt at large-scale censorship? The answer lies within the answer, &#8220;large-scale&#8221; being the key. And such is the logical reasoning that it implies: if one thing is censored as objectionable widely enough, it will be seen as plain immoral, and thus the number of people that it appeals to will diminish considerably. As prurient fiction depicts immoral conduct, it should be banned just as the material it depicts, otherwise the first reasoning cannot work to the extent it should.</p>
<p>That is indeed <em>logical</em>. However, logic does not imply truth. For example:</p>
<blockquote><p>All men have blue skin.<br />
Socrates was a man.<br />
Thus, Socrates had blue skin.</p></blockquote>
<p>In this regard, the former reasoning has several flaws:</p>
<p>1. The fact that one thing is widely considered immoral does not mean that it is &#8220;immoral&#8221;, let alone that it should be.<br />
2. Nothing proves that making something &#8220;immoral&#8221; lessens the amount of people that it appeals to. This presupposition confirms the reasoning, but is not necessarily true.<br />
3. Prurient fiction does not inherently depict &#8220;immoral conduct&#8221;: <em>morality is something that individuals and/or cultures define</em>.</p>
<p>Consequently, most proponents of censorship do think logically. There are of course some exceptions, just as is the case among our ranks. That is why I support using logical means to attain our goals.</p>
<p>[Rogue editor's note: stop leaving outrageously trollish and stupid comments, I'll delete them even if the other editors approve them.  Thanks.]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://yestofreedom.org/2009/09/24/logic-and-censorship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

