Yes. Do you believe you’re protecting some potential human, in some potential situation, at some time and place in the future? What does he look like?

I see. In order to protect people, you must know what they look like. This is why e.g. the military are required to look at a photo of every person in their country before they go on a tour of duty. Always wondered about that. Thx.

No. In order to protect someone they must first exist outside of the imagination.

I see. So banning guns from America would protect imaginary children but not real ones who would continue to be killed by the imaginary guns that no longer exist. And as only imaginary guns kill real children and real guns only kill imaginary children, gun control cannot protect children in reality but only in the imagination. Wow, thx.

:rofl: at this conversation.

Let anyone fly a plane — you think restricting their rights will protect anyone? That’s in the future. Who are you to play God? They never crashed a plane before and don’t intend to. So you’re in no position to restrict their rights, you statist.

Anyway, yeah most Americans don’t want the mentally ill to have guns and want background checks. Close to 90%. Turns out they care more about the right for children not to get shot than some libertarian nutjob’s Minority Report view of crime.

My only point is that restricting someone’s rights is not the same as protecting children. You’re welcome.

Still appealing to the populace. Cringe-worthy.

It can clearly amount to the same thing. We restrict the rights of sex offenders to be alone with children, for example, to PROTECT those children.

:rofl: at this conversation. — Mikie

I also think it's funny. But then, I'm a raging nihilist.

.

So, you think it's better to protect individual pedophiles and libertarian nutjobs because they are "individuals" and not the "populace". The populace is made up of individuals too, you know.

The idea that some men must work for governments in order for rights to be meaningful and useful is nonsense. I can confer a right to you and defend it just as any king or official can. — NOS4A2

No you can't.

But you don’t restrict the rights of everyone to be alone with children so as to protect children. Isn’t that so?

Why not?

It’s a fallacy for a reason.

What's a fallacy and which fallacy is it? And please, for the love of God, reply with something that makes sense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

But you don’t restrict the rights of everyone to be alone with children so as to protect children. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

We do restrict the rights of every employer to employ children or discriminate based on sex, race, etc. in order to protect children and other marginalized groups. Is that ok?

You restrict the rights of children to work. What if they want to? Instead they have to sell chiclets on the streets.

I didn't say anywhere that gun control must be good only because the majority are in favour of it.

You didn’t answer my question.

As a business owner, shouldn’t I have the right to hire whomever I want, for whatever reason? I should also have the right to pay whatever wage I want, but the government restricts these rights. My question is whether or not you think this restriction is justified.

You restrict the rights of children to work. What if they want to? Instead they have to sell chiclets on the streets. — NOS4A2

Selling chiclets on the street is a form of work. Children are free to start their own business, and many do. But it’s ridiculous to think that employers should be forced to hire a child simply because the child wants to work.

I do not think so.

It’s true. I wasn’t directing it at you.

So, the world would be a better place if businesses were able to exploit child labor?

No it wouldn’t.

Lol, then why would you prefer that to be the case? If not allowing businesses to hire children is unjustified, then that implies businesses should be able to hire children.

. I wasn’t directing it at you. — NOS4A2

I don't think Xtrix made that type of argument either. It's relevant to wonder in the context of a debate over government policy in a supposed democracy at the disparity between such policy and the wishes of the vast majority of its citizens. That doesn't fall foul of the fallacy you've mentioned but points to the corrupt influence of special interests.

What will a child do if they are forced to work because the rest of their family is unable to, but they are not allowed to work because some white night fears a Dickensian nightmare? Selling Chiclets to tourists or far worse.

That doesn't fall foul of the fallacy you've mentioned but points to the corrupt influence of special interests. — Baden

Yes. Gun rights aren’t sensible because a huge majority believe they are; in this case, it’s so sensible that a huge majority (even in a deeply divided nation and among gun owners) are in favor of it. Basically common sense.

If not allowing businesses to hire children is unjustified, then that implies businesses should be able to hire children. — Pinprick

Oh the good ol’ days before child labor laws! You know, when children’s “rights” (wink wink) to work weren’t violated by a meddling bureaucracy and employers could exploit workers with impunity.

Looking for a true libertarianism paradise? Look no further.

What will a child do if they are forced to work — NOS4A2

Which is why we shouldn’t have a society where kids (or anyone) are “forced to work.” We know you want to keep it this way by abandoning all social programs, but try not projecting your fantasies on others.