Gamers of the World, Unite

[Jester]

I see it the opposite.

Anything that is shown to be healthy for kids should be kids right(with in the bounds feasability and affordability.)

Anything that is for which the pros and cons are honestly debatable should be at the parents peragative first and the states perogative second, the childs last.
[right][snapback]105052[/snapback][/right]

You can always raise doubts about any given set of evidence or arguments. If "honestly debatable" is the threshold, then nothing, not even ordinary eating and drinking, not even hearing people speak, not even survival itself is beyond that threshold. All of that is, potentially, "bad for the child," at least according to someone's standards.

The world is not a rubber room. Nerf does not manufacture reality. Such a standard as you propose would remove all rights from children. We must let children see the world as it is, and protect them from it only as much as is necessary.

For the state to ban something, there should be a very high standard of evidence. I would hope parents would be the same, but then, it seems that most parents don't remember what it was like to be a child, and instead substitute Victorian literary tropes.

I can't stop parents from being irrational, but I'll argue until my voice is hoarse to prevent such things from getting state sponsorship.

-Jester