SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (6112)3/13/2007 11:06:39 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 10087
 
I can see your point, but think the distinction is impractical.

And I see your point that the distinction is impractical. Looked at casually, meth addiction is a reasonable proxy for a child endangerment criterion. But it's too sloppy for use as a legal determinant, which is what we were discussing, if you recall. It's even sloppier when you consider alcoholism. First of all, not all alcoholics drink. And of those that drink, not all pass out, get violent, or are otherwise dangerous to their children. Many alcoholics are fully or nearly fully functional. Certainly fewer than half, maybe as few as ten percent, of alcoholics are any danger to their children. So it's likewise "impractical" to take their kids away because of their alcoholism. That's just too wide a net.

Developing legal criteria requires more critical thinking than equating alcoholism with child endangerment.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News