18 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignWould you rather have your kid smoking than vaccinated?
" I would say that a parent that allows his ten year old to smoke or drink alcohol is guilty of serious malfeasance. Do you disagree?"
My personal choice would be to prevent my children from smoking, and to limit their drinking, although beer and wine were always allowed for my kids in reasonable quantities. I felt, and experience has proven me right ...[text shortened]... s. Again, if it was a personal choice, I'd rather have my kid smoking than on Ridlin.
18 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe "clear evidence" is that people will steal even though there are laws against theft. That people will break laws is hardly an argument that said laws shouldn't exist.
" I would say that a parent that allows his ten year old to smoke or drink alcohol is guilty of serious malfeasance. Do you disagree?"
My personal choice would be to prevent my children from smoking, and to limit their drinking, although beer and wine were always allowed for my kids in reasonable quantities. I felt, and experience has proven me right s. Again, if it was a personal choice, I'd rather have my kid smoking than on Ridlin.
The last paragraph is a False Choice to a large extent. IF kids are going to go to the public schools, then I see no "natural right" to not be vaccinated against highly infectious diseases - indeed this type of protection of the public health has been a standard "police power" for hundreds of years and was certainly accepted by the Founders. My personal preference is against compulsory school attendance laws which would eliminate any perceived dilemma.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by quackquackNot a question of either or. I'd rather make the decision myself on both things. It's like the HPV vaccine Governor Perry mandated in Texas. This isn't without risks and side effects.
Would you rather have your kid smoking than vaccinated?
No problem if a parent wants it, but it never should be mandated by government. If and when government is wrong, when do they ever admit it and correct the error or indemnify the harmed?
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with the latter solution, especially given the horrid results of public education anyway.
The "clear evidence" is that people will steal even though there are laws against theft. That people will break laws is hardly an argument that said laws shouldn't exist.
The last paragraph is a False Choice to a large extent. IF kids are going to go to the public schools, then I see no "natural right" to not be vaccinated against highly ...[text shortened]... is against compulsory school attendance laws which would eliminate any perceived dilemma.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"The "clear evidence" is that people will steal even though there are laws against theft. That people will break laws is hardly an argument that said laws shouldn't exist."
The "clear evidence" is that people will steal even though there are laws against theft. That people will break laws is hardly an argument that said laws shouldn't exist.
The last paragraph is a False Choice to a large extent. IF kids are going to go to the public schools, then I see no "natural right" to not be vaccinated against highly ...[text shortened]... is against compulsory school attendance laws which would eliminate any perceived dilemma.
There also is evidence which says that the greater support a law has, the less enforcement is needed.
18 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignDo you really think there is a lot of opposition to laws that ban sales of tobacco and alcohol to children?
"The "clear evidence" is that people will steal even though there are laws against theft. That people will break laws is hardly an argument that said laws shouldn't exist."
There also is evidence which says that the greater support a law has, the less enforcement is needed.
