View Single Post
05-10-2013, 10:41 AM
Registered User
Mentallydull's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,196
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Bobblehead View Post
We don't educate parents and allow them to make decsisions on seat belts, car seats, driver's licences, drinking age, broadcast standards, fluoride in our drinking water, child labor laws, public health care and other areas. There needs to be a certain level of government oversight and involvement. In these cases and others, goverments have opted to take the decision out of parents' hands for the greater good. That's just the way it is. You don't like it, exercise your freedom to vote someone else into office that will change it or exercise that right to move to a place that will allow you those choices.
What? Of course they've been educated - even I was educated as a child in regards to all of those (exception being fluoride/broadcast standards (???)).

The government has taken the choice out of the parent's hands, I'm not debating that.

Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean it's invalid, it means I have a differing opinion. This is a debate, the last time I checked, I'm not running for office or starting a political campaign, so you can save the whole "take it or leave it" spiel, thanks.

You're taking the discussion in a philosophical direction where we'll end up debating how much the government should/shouldn't intervene (and maybe my comment started that?). There's no way to win the personal freedom argument either way. Your standards are different than mine. I don't have a problem with intervention in many cases. I think its needed to regulate stupid people. You seem to think there's too much and the people meekly following government's action are the stupid people. Neither one will win this argument. So let's ignore it and move on.
I can agree that there's no way to win the personal freedom argument due to differing standards.

You think it's needed to regulate stupid people, I think it's used as a cheap excuse by weak-willed people to not have to make any difficult decisions. Differing opinions yet again but yes, lets move on.

Government regulations affect on personal freedoms. They do it all the time. Its not going to change anytime soon.
It's true that regulations can affect personal freedoms but are you forced to agree with them?

I am accepting and applauding their decision. I believe that not every adult has their childs' best interest at heart - most of the time they're not even aware they're doing it. I've found myself guilty of it too at times. Its impossible not to. And its not restricted to hockey.

I've read the reports. I've been watching documentaries on concussions. I've been reading articles. I've been listening to what Keith Primeau has to say about his experience. I think they made the right decision, protect as many kids dangerous brain injury for as long as you can. Is it a perfect solution, no. But it works for me.
I'm fine with you stating your opinion and I can see legitimate arguments from both sides - the main issue I had was the whole "greater good" stuff.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote