03-22-2006, 11:25 PM
Jester,Mar 21 2006, 08:43 PM Wrote: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
[right][snapback]105068[/snapback][/right]
Not fair.
Thats a completely different argument and one I wont bother debating(and a vastly more general arguemt too).
Basically all arguments are predicated on shared axioms existing. You can logically throw out the general concept of society having any norms a all, but that belief was implicit in this subject from the start, when we accepted the the laws in some form are valid.
On the other hand is is reasonable in our context to debate particular axioms.
Anyway that was high school level tactic you tried - shame.