[mejari]

>And if your child (Lets say over the age of 3) is still eating random non-food items without checking with you, then you're not doing a great parenting job.

That's just plain ridiculous. No amount or quality of parenting will prevent a child from occasionally doing something stupid, any more than it will prevent an adult from the same.

[jlgaddis]

a.k.a. Darwinism

[mejari]

Which we accept as the natural form of evolution, but wholly reject continuing to act without recourse on our species. Unless you also dislike any medicine or safety measures.

[anigbrowl]

OK but where does it end? Every time you strike a match you could start a fatal fire, but it would obviously be absurd to require people to take a safety class every time they strike a match. We settle for putting a generic warning on boxes of matches instead. Likewise you can buy gasoline and propane at the gas station without having to go through any bureaucracy, because it's assumed that responsible individuals know fire is dangerous and that refined fuels are highly-combustible, so as long as there are some warning signs up to remind people of the fact then the public interest is considered to have been served. And sure enough, millions of people buy and consume gasoline every day without injury despite the high risk potential.

Please stop offering false dichotomies like 'status quo (even when it's failing) or no regulation at all.'

[mejari]

>Please stop offering false dichotomies

as opposed to your slippery-slope "where does it end?" argument?

Unless you think that there should be no regulations at all, you agree that there is some line before which there should be regulations and after it there shouldn't, so "where does it end" is an actual discussion to have, not a non-sequitor to end the conversation like you're using it.

[anigbrowl]

Oh no. you said 'Unless you also dislike any medicine or safety measures.' I asked you where the line of demarcation was for acceptable safety measures, and gave some examples for context, which is a totally legitimate question.

It was not a non-sequitur at all. I want an answer.

[mejari]

The answer is we have that debate as a society. I was asserting that there was a line of demarcation, because you asserted that there wasn't with your claim of "Darwinism".