4 ms·

There's a balance to strive for between making a statement concisely and making it nitpick-proof. I could have been more factually correct by stating that it's

There's a balance to strive for between making a statement concisely and making it nitpick-proof. I could have been more factually correct by stating that it's illegal to sell booze directly to minors, but that would've made the tone of my comment less rabidly libertarian. The point, of course, is that parents can make a meaningful decision about whether they'll give booze to their kids a lot more easily than they can do the same for exposing their kids to advertisement. Plus, I'm pretty sure that, even in those states, you could get in some sort of legal trouble for giving whiskey to a 2-year old. Obviously, we can't claim similar level of damage when it comes to advertising, but we don't seem to be willing to look more closely into it, either.

jlgreco 13y ago
> I could have been more factually correct by stating that it's illegal to sell booze directly to minors, but that would've made the tone of my comment less rabidly libertarian. Yes, it is a damn shame when reality gets in the way of your strawmen... Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and South Carolina all allow minors to drink alcohol on private property without the consent of their parents. In several states the only way you could get in trouble for giving whiskey to a 2-year old is if you gave it in sufficient quantities that child endangerment became clear. Letting your kid to take a small sip of whiskey under supervision to convince the kid that he wants nothing more to do with it is reasonable and legal in many areas.