Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

dpark 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I did. Restricting children’s access to certain things is not ageism.

We can argue the merits of restricting children’s access to the internet, or certain books, or alcohol, or pornography, or whatever else. We can debate the merits of those various restrictions based on the benefits and costs to both the children and society at large.

But it is not ageism to attempt to protect children. It is not ageism even of the restriction is a bad idea. To claim it is ageism is an emotional appeal (“ageism bad!”), not a logical one.

▲

array_key_first 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It depends on what you're restricting and why. Restricting access to things based on age can absolutely be ageism if the thing does not need to be restricted.

	▲	dpark 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t think it’s ever “ageism” in the normal sense to restrict children’s activities for their safety. But even if that’s the right term in some cases, it hinges on “if the thing does not need to be restricted”. The burden is still to demonstrate that a restriction is wrong. If that can’t be demonstrated, then labeling it ageism is a purely emotional appeal.

▲

Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You jumped to children behind the wheel of vehicles and doing tequila shots. There is no way that was a serious effort at good faith discourse.

▲

dpark 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I used a rhetorical device to demonstrate why restricting children’s activities is not simply ageism.

I don’t know how you can seriously come here and accuse me of engaging in bad faith when I’ve taken the time to make my viewpoint explicit multiple times in this thread now, including directly to you.

▲

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hyperbole is a rhetorical device, if that’s what you mean.

Just because I had a hard time following your logic doesn’t mean I didn’t engage in good faith. You also seem to be arguing in a heated way with every person who responds to you.

Either way it’s probably best if we both move on

	▲	dpark 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I did not accuse you of not engaging in good faith. You accused me of that. I don’t think I responded to anyone in a heated manner, though I will readily admit to being annoyed when you accused me of bad faith. Agree we should move on.