|
>> Just read your piece re the 'Nanny State'. Well thanks for reading. >> You poor, sad buffoon. Well I was certainly saddened by the bashing of a 5 week old baby. >> The law re child seats is about the rights of children, not about the
>> 'rights' of their parents. You are totally right that this is not about the 'rights' of parents (my
original article didn't even mention rights). I regard this as being about
responsibility and choice. >> But for the law, regardless of extraneous
>> circumstances, parents would be able to transport these children however
>> they want. And the children would have no say whatsoever about it. Do you
>> consider that to be a more just outcome? You may like to read what you have written, and think it through.
"And the children would have no say whatsoever about it.". Children
have no say about it in either scenario. (Have you noticed that
people under 18 don't vote?). Children are judged 'incompetent' to make such decisions for themselves -
that is one definition of children. Given that children
are not competent to make the decisions themselves, the issue is who
should make the choices for them.
- The parents, who have the most knowledge, and the most at stake.
- The all-knowing, all-powerful, all-mighty government.
>> Perhaps in this case, in retrospect, it would have been better for old mate
>> Nunes to drive home. That's all good and well. What you haven't
>> considered, my little friend, is that Nunes should have thought about return
>> transport BEFORE he went boozing in the first place. There is a Latin maxim
>> that goes "volenti non fit injuria"- translation: voluntary assumption of
>> risk. If Nunes didn't want to walk home, then he should have thought about
>> it earlier. Why? Why force people to
think these things through before-hand when you don't need to. Why not let
people make decisions based on what is safest for their family at the time. The best laid plains of mice and men change - people don't turn up, places
close early, taxis don't turn up, cars break down, people get sick, plans
change. People find themselves in these situations, and the government
reduces their choices and puts them at risk by doing so. >> Trying to blame the government for this kid's injuries is typical of your
>> nonsensical ranting. Put some thought into what you write before you post
>> it on your page. Otherwise you'll just evoke sympathy for your own sad
>> plight, rather than the plights of others. Actually, I thought it through quite carefully, which is more than I think
you have done judging from your 'children will have no say' remark.
Think it through. Think it through. >> regards
>> George
>> the ex-prez Well that explains your love of all-powerful government. Thanks for reading.
| 
