Literally like North Korea. Right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_he

Literally like North Korea. Right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_... Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to what are perceived to be more important problems. First World problems are a subset of this fallacy.[95][96] Only if you hate language and you purposely warp definition of commonly understood words and concepts to support your conclusion or ideology. I'm fairly certain this is what you're attempting presently. Raising children by imparting morals, and providing structure and constraints is NOT authoritarian policing. Those are two different things. I (and they) said policing. You can call it authoritarian or you can choose to refrain from that. It's still policing. And though children certainly are humans (who actually claims otherwise?), they are not endowed with the same societal rights and responsibilities that adults are. Humans can dissent, and have certain natural rights. If you agree that children are humans, then coercing them into something without consent is policing. While you can say that you've got the right to partake in policing, there doesn't seem to be a case for the idea that it isn't policing. Most people understand this distinction instinctively. You, on the other hand, have some trouble there. Plenty of people understand things instinctively. This is why stoning women to death still happens in certain parts of the world, and was also the argument for owning slaves. Just because something is "instinctive" for certain people doesn't mean that it's correct. Changelog on this comment: removed a bit of personal information because I figure making myself easier to identify isn't worth it for a message board argument.