That’s a weird position to have: basically you’re saying that there’s no moral way to limit the topic of or the accessibility to a closed group. Am I representing you correctly? If not, where would you put the boundaries?
Gentlemen clubs are actually concentrations of power where informal deals happen. Admitting women to these institutions is vital to having gender equality at the highest echelons of civic power.
And theology is discussed all the time on LW, even if it is often the subject of criticism.
I was just saying that those particular examples were poorly chosen. But since you have me engaged here, the problem with taking an absolutive view is when a private communication medium, e.g. Facebook, becomes a medium of debate over civic issues. Somewhere along the way it becomes a public commons vital to democracy where matters of free speech must be protected. In some countries (not the USA) this is arguably already the case with Facebook.
That’s a weird position to have: basically you’re saying that there’s no moral way to limit the topic of or the accessibility to a closed group.
Am I representing you correctly? If not, where would you put the boundaries?
Those specific examples are bad examples.
Gentlemen clubs are actually concentrations of power where informal deals happen. Admitting women to these institutions is vital to having gender equality at the highest echelons of civic power.
And theology is discussed all the time on LW, even if it is often the subject of criticism.
I was just saying that those particular examples were poorly chosen. But since you have me engaged here, the problem with taking an absolutive view is when a private communication medium, e.g. Facebook, becomes a medium of debate over civic issues. Somewhere along the way it becomes a public commons vital to democracy where matters of free speech must be protected. In some countries (not the USA) this is arguably already the case with Facebook.