4 ms·
>> How is not banning / removing / restricting a book "enforc[ing] one group’s values on the children"? The sentence you quoted literally presumes that that is
by dabbledash 5y ago
>> How is not banning / removing / restricting a book "enforc[ing] one group’s values on the children"?
The sentence you quoted literally presumes that that is the case. I say if you think it’s ok for one group to impose its values on kids as a whole you should think what these parents are doing (trying to impose their values) is ok.
But I suggest we should instead try to look for non-zero-sum solutions where neither group does that.
- CRConrad 5y agoBut just offering the book, without forcing them to read it, is not imposing one's values on kids. What the parents are doing, forbidding the kids from reading it, is imposing their (not the kids'!) values. They're not equivalent. IMO the non-zero-sum solution is exactly where neither group imposes their values on the kids, i.e. making the book available for those who want to read it (which will have to mean available for all of them, since we can't know in advance which of them will want to), without either making it mandatory to read or forbidding them from reading it. Seems to me one of the sides of this issue is a lot closer to that ideal than the other.