Well, my point was that they’re trying to have it both ways. They’re trying to advance a policy agenda, which would require discussion, but then they claim the discussion offends them. I realize this is just a debate trick, but so what? Like most debate tricks it’s based on a fallacy. They can’t have it both ways. If discussion is to rough and tumble for their delicate souls, we can just leave the policy the way it is. But they don’t get to change it AND shut down debate.
I understand.
“But they don’t get to change it AND shut down debate.”
But that’s the way they want it. After all, they “know better” than us.