Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I do approve of this infringement of parents'
> freedom, in principle at least - protecting the child should
> be higher priority. Then one can of course disagree with the
> application of principle in individual cases.
I don't know.  By the time they're old enough for it to matter,
children tend to pick their own names anyway.  It seemed like very
few children in my class went by their legal names, and the teachers
went along with the children's wishes in this regard.  The actual
name on the birth certificate is just not that big a deal.

> I, apparently unlike many Americans, do not feel that "freedom"
> is necessarily a good thing.
Of course, unlimited freedom does not, and cannot exist.
The American ideal is individual freedom to the extent it doesn't
infringe upon the freedom of others.  The problem in practice is
defining what constitutes such infringement.

> I'm all for banning smoking in restaurants, for instance.
Absolutely a good thing; cigarette smoke is a hazard to the health
of people other than the smoker.  Some examples are trickier,
though.  For instance, many states now legally require people in
automobiles to wear seatbelts.  That smacks of trying to save them
from themselves, which is not the law's job.  The counterargument
is that it's protecting the taxpayers from having to pay for medical
care for uninsured idiots who don't buckle up.

-Mark

Reply