Editorial: Support A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to silence dissenters. ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ████████ █████████████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ █████████████ ████████
The author concludes that if the saying “those who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns,” is true, then the people who passed a law intending to silence dissenters must be ignorant of much of history’s patterns. This is because history shows that silencing dissenters leads to authoritarianism.
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. The saying is that if one is ignorant of history, then one will repeat its patterns. But this doesn’t imply that if one repeats history’s patterns, one must be ignorant of history. It’s possible that the people who passed the law are repeating history’s patterns even if they’re not ignorant. In fact, maybe they want to follow the patterns of history and are fully aware of what is likely to happen.
The editorialist's reasoning is flawed ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████
the law may ████ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ██████████
certain freedoms might █████████ ████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████
some historical accounts ██████ ████ █████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ██ █████████████ ███████
many good laws ████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████
even those who ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████