You’re asserting that they have a right to make all of their own decisions, then asserting that I don’t believe in a free society unless I agree. Neither of these things is obviously true- it’s possible to support children having some decisions made for them without supporting totalitarianism.
See my other reply for examples of kids making their own decisions. Do you support all of those?
That’s actually a strawman. I asserted all people, kids and adults, have the right to be unhealthy, and they do.
What a kid eats is between their parents and them, and no one else, not you or the rest of the community, has the right to simply stick your oar in like that because you think you have the right to keep kids under your thumb like that. You don’t. To assert otherwise is authoritarian.
You might not like being called authoritarian, but it’s the truth, and it doesn’t change because you think all people should eat is fucking rabbit food. 🤦
If you want an authoritarian country, just say so instead of playing word gams with me. I’m not gonna give you the fight that you want.
Where did I say that I wanted a say? We were talking about whether kids should be free to make all of their own decisions. I’m using bad decisions with food as an example, and you’re accusing me of trying to tell other people what to do, then calling me an authoritarian.
I’m not fighting, I’m just checking out of the conversation. Go fuck yourself.
You said you wanted a say when you advocated for that policy in the first place. To have that policy, you need that say, therefore you want it.
People of all ages make bad decisions with food and it is therefore something you’d have to enforce on people throughout life if you wanted to do it properly. That’s all I and the others were trying to tell you. What you want is authoritarian, controlling food is a hallmark of an authoritarian country, and I’ll say it for the third time, if that’s what you want, just be honest about it.
You can say “I want an authoritarian country that controls the nutrition of its constituents for the health and betterment of all” and that would be consistent.
You can’t say “I want a country that controls families to the point where we dictate what the kids can and can’t eat, even against the parents’ will, and still calls itself a free country” because it is not.
Getting mad at me because I want consistency and the others who rejected you outright is just silly. I have many ideas for a new country that I know for a fact will be universally rejected but I still advocate for them because I know they’re ultimately better for everyone and I don’t get bent out of shape when people do. Heavens above. 🤦
You’re asserting that they have a right to make all of their own decisions, then asserting that I don’t believe in a free society unless I agree. Neither of these things is obviously true- it’s possible to support children having some decisions made for them without supporting totalitarianism.
See my other reply for examples of kids making their own decisions. Do you support all of those?
That’s actually a strawman. I asserted all people, kids and adults, have the right to be unhealthy, and they do.
What a kid eats is between their parents and them, and no one else, not you or the rest of the community, has the right to simply stick your oar in like that because you think you have the right to keep kids under your thumb like that. You don’t. To assert otherwise is authoritarian.
You might not like being called authoritarian, but it’s the truth, and it doesn’t change because you think all people should eat is fucking rabbit food. 🤦
If you want an authoritarian country, just say so instead of playing word gams with me. I’m not gonna give you the fight that you want.
Honestly.
Where did I say that I wanted a say? We were talking about whether kids should be free to make all of their own decisions. I’m using bad decisions with food as an example, and you’re accusing me of trying to tell other people what to do, then calling me an authoritarian.
I’m not fighting, I’m just checking out of the conversation. Go fuck yourself.
You said you wanted a say when you advocated for that policy in the first place. To have that policy, you need that say, therefore you want it.
People of all ages make bad decisions with food and it is therefore something you’d have to enforce on people throughout life if you wanted to do it properly. That’s all I and the others were trying to tell you. What you want is authoritarian, controlling food is a hallmark of an authoritarian country, and I’ll say it for the third time, if that’s what you want, just be honest about it.
You can say “I want an authoritarian country that controls the nutrition of its constituents for the health and betterment of all” and that would be consistent.
You can’t say “I want a country that controls families to the point where we dictate what the kids can and can’t eat, even against the parents’ will, and still calls itself a free country” because it is not.
Getting mad at me because I want consistency and the others who rejected you outright is just silly. I have many ideas for a new country that I know for a fact will be universally rejected but I still advocate for them because I know they’re ultimately better for everyone and I don’t get bent out of shape when people do. Heavens above. 🤦
…I just gave them the fight that they wanted. FML
What policy? Go find the thing that I said that you think is me advocating for overriding the will of kids and their parents, and just quote it at me.
When you advocated having a government with a constitutional policy to regulate what children eat, overriding the autonomy of families.
I don’t get what you don’t get about that. Why are you unwilling to see your own policy for what it is?
Quote where I said that.