David
A book called 'The Meaning of Liff' describes what you have just done in a single word: that word is 'Glenties'. It describes a state when a person, while arguing, accidentally 'walks' round the argument and ends up facing the opposite direction from which they started toi end up AGREEING with the original person wsith whom they were arguing!
My point was SOLELY that you CANNOT use the argument about 'thrills' to justify doing something: that was EXACTLY what RPaterese (I think) was stating and to which I was objecting.
You now state:
"logically, there is no difference between allowing a child to take heroin for the thrill and allowing them to ride motorbikes for the thrill. That cannot be disputed."
If eve4 I watched someone perform 'Glenties' it's you, in this situation!
Secondly, your final paragraph makes a strange jump. You would not lyt your child ride motorbikes but wouldn't ban other children from so doing. Clearly, it's about risk in this case. However, you would NOT let ANY child take heroin for what you call 'moral' reasons. By 'morals', you really mean 'mores' (Latin) I think.... however. If you don't feel that children should be allowed to risk intoxicating substances, I trust you'll never let yours taste alocohol or, perhaps, you'll take the vastly greater step taken by the Mormons of declaring Tea and Coffee as similarly 'immoral' and thus, banned from children...... and adults.
There is NO logical basis to 'morals' simply because there is no AGREEMENT on what counts as moral or immoral. I would thus state your use of 'morals' in this one is VERY much more like 'mores' (rough translation: customs, manners, habits, etc.) than 'logic'.
Ian
|
|