Paul G. Allen wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
RB W wrote:
Which by defining the whole by the faction and assigning greater value
to the secular would lead to the same definition/redefinition of what
is acceptably private.
Education of your children, by definition, has a public result.
For example, an entire state that decided to teach "creation science"
would do irreparable harm to the futures of those children.
Interesting, and a bad example. I went to a school that taught it and
most of us turned out just fine (There are always exceptions - like the
one classmate of mine that was last seen by me on the news, in court,
for murder). We were, in fact, taught both evolution and creation,
giving us a unique understanding to both theories.
Why should individuals be allowed to do something which agree would be
harmful if the state did it?
The State does many things that are harmful, and us individuals allow
them to do it. So why should the State be allowed to do even more harm?
You did a nice job of completely twisting the question to something
which does not follow even remotely from what I said.
At no point did I claim that we should allow the State to do harm or do
further harm. I simply pointed out that if we prevent that State from
doing certain harmful things, what suddenly gives individuals the right
to do the same harmful thing?
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
