"Cannot" versus "Should Not"
OK, I'm done derailing the macroparasite thread. Everyone is welcome, just read some of what's already been said.
So, we've got the issue of whether or not it's right to regulate thoughts, essentially. I argue that it's feasible, and I also argue that there are cases where certain sets of beliefs can lead to harm of others, at least when put into practice. We already legislate certain sorts of behaviors that are unacceptable, even if these behaviors are tied to some sort of philosophy. Thus, I contend that we indirectly regulate the philosophies themselves, either through legislation or through social rejection mechanisms.
There is no issue with an adult having a belief system that includes detriment to others, so long as they do not engage in or facilitate the conduct of said detriment. However, when an adult molds a child to become a vehicle for that belief, he has committed an act of child abuse, whether or not that child actually engages in the detrimental behavior. We can (and have) identified practices that we collectively deem unacceptable (female genital mutiliation anyone?), so I contend that the philosophy which encourages the practice of such a detrimental behavior is itself at fault, as are those who follow it and encourage its propagation to children, who are unwitting recepients.
Thus, we are capable of legislating at least the behavior resultant from a given philosophy, and as such can effectively legislate a philosophy away. I argue that we should do so when it is clear that the philosophy encourages detriment to others, and especially in cases where children are being indoctrinated into said philosophy.
Disucss. Or flame.