Due to suppressed immune system

Age

Allergies

Medical Reasons <--

People who have diseases or are on medications that suppress the immune system namely, people on steroids for whatever reason, leukemia and other types of cancer, other variations depending on the individual vaccination. There are people who cannot take them, and they should be able to go to school with safe expectations.

it's not my opinion i'm talking about

i'm talking about society as a whole and what we deem adequate when it comes to looking after your children, if you don't meet the minimum standards whatever they may be for a given era, then the state should step in in order to look after the well being of a child



all reasonable

This post was edited by duffman316 on Feb 25 2015 03:54pm

by your own description a passing of time = changes in acceptable parenting. However these changes dont come in phases they are constantly changing making governmental intervention rather subjective in alot of cases. Why is it the government gets to tell a parent they cant use a switch on a child when it can be used without long term physical scarring? Because the general population says so? If i put out a mail in flyer that asked if the government should 100% stop taking in taxes the general consensus would be to stop taxes and yet that would cause anarchy with a governmental collapse. I dont think any legislation should stand solely on the leg of societal norms. Long term physical harm will always be a societal taboo, degrading verbal abuse will also. That is where the govt. should stop in terms of parental intervention.

i agree it is subjective and that's simply how things are, the laws are also constantly changing over time to reflect this

society's attitudes towards corporal punishment is a good example of this, societal norms will always play a significant role in legislative processes

if you can bring about the downfall of the govt by circulating a few flyers i'd say go for it but i doubt you'll find a consensus that taxes should be reduced to zero

This post was edited by duffman316 on Feb 25 2015 04:39pm

I think this notion is preposterous. How far are you allowed to stretch the concept of "adversely affecting someone?" What about extent?



But how reasonable is the original position in the first place? The simple fact is that people DO have different experiences and values that drive their decision-making, they do not have a shared starting point.



Long thread, I'm sorry. Where at? I've been busy getting this new signature vvv



So, mob rule? Exactly where do rights come into play? Only when you find them convenient?

said mob is why you have any rights at all

You know, of course, that I've always disagreed with this notion.

you've probably mentioned it before and i just can't remember so tell me again, who guarantees your rights if not the mob (who you are a member of given that you're a citizen of the state and all)?

My rights exist independent of the state. That the state chooses to observe them and codify that observation is good for both of us, as they won't get people hurt violating them and I won't get hurt defending them.