As a general matter, we don't render declaratory judgments, meaning there must be an actual case in controversy for us to rule. That means we don't entertain hypotheticals and then declare some sort of binding precedent. What we do is when there is an actual case, we read the rules and we interpret them, relying to some extent upon the way they were interpreted before.
To do otherwise would result in our continually responding to "what ifs," which we don't have time for, and which often wouldn't be helpful anyway because actual cases have all sorts of nuances that have to be considered. — Hanover
Isn’t this a summary of the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?... but the members of that court have no individual fiat: they must vote as a jury, and convict only according to a majority opinion. In this forum however, each member of the court has the power to impose capital punishment non-unilaterally.
To state (by proxy) something bannable through a famous philosopher's words gives you no protection from banning. Whether that philosopher be Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Nietszche or whoever. All would have been banned themselves for espousing Nazism, sexism, slavery, and/or misogyny if they chose to do so here. Neither being famous nor hiding behind someone famous gives you protection from the rules. — Baden
Let’s fill out the list a bit: Plato, Zeno, Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca, Maimonides, Ariovistus, Marcus Aurelius, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Pascal, Tocqueville, Kant, Hegel, Weber, etc, etc, etc...not to mention the philosophers better known under a different title, like “epic poet” or “play-write”, who were really philosophers, like Homer or Vergil or Milton or Shakespeare: THOU SHALT NOT AGREE WITH ANY SENTIMENT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS THAT IS NOT APPROVED OF BY THE OPINION OF ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM’S MODERATORS, UPON HIS JUDICIOUS REVIEW OF YOUR STATED SENTIMENT.
What Mr. Baden doesn’t recognize is that there is a distinction between being famous and being great...
That’s what I was trying to reveal in my story: a tale of a man who wants “to be like Mike,” like the popular man he encountered at university. My protagonist is a selfish opportunistic soul who thinks greatness lies in how many “thumbs-up” he can get; how much money he can get out of that to enjoy gustatorial pleasures like steak dinners and cigarettes he doesn’t have to roll...
...he eventually gets “banned” by a judicial court for not just espousing, but actually acting out on his “insensitive” opinion. But his actions are really the result of jealousy, not racism: he envies the Kenyan runner’s fame.
I wrote this story, in part, as a test: to see how a misogynistic and racist fiction would be acceptable to the tyranny of moderation here, and—lo and behold!—it was accepted!
But why was it accepted? Why was I not told by Mr. Baden, “Your story is too full of racist and misogynistic sentiments; therefore, I must reject it,” or, “You’re banned: for racist and misogynistic content”? I dunno...
...but my advice to you, dear reader of this post, is that if you want to express an opinion that might be construed as racist or sexist or misogynist or—whatever—in this forum, just be sure to couch it in a fiction: then it will be overlooked.