It sounds like the example can definitely stay (though it may need rewrites to sound less wishy-washy); he's certainly using the Think of the Children! tactic, the only question is whether or not he's sincere about it. The only thing that's arguable is whether it's a straight example or an invoked example, either way it can go on the page.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
The Real Life example on driving restrictions sounds a lot like a whiny 18 year old. Driving is a privilege the state can regulate as it sees fit, and given how many accidents drivers 18 and under cause, especially when other teenagers are in the car, they're lucky to be allowed on the roads at all.
Unchanging Avatar.
I'd strongly suggest we remove the Truth in Television paragraph. It doesn't really explain the trope. Someone just wanted to talk about it right off the bat. Let's just move it into Real Life. Any objections?
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Deleted the following example as per Examples Are Not Arguable.
- In the Star Trek novel Losing the Peace, the Governor of Pacifica makes such an argument. He's apparently concerned about refugees' effects on the Selkie breeding islands, but might possibly be simply annoyed by the refugees. He insists that the delicate environmental requirements of the Selkie young risk being disrupted by the settlers, and that in the name of the children steps should be taken to remove the outsiders. Most of the refugees have nowhere else to go, and really Pacifica should be honoring its obligations to the wider Federation by accepting them. It's a complicated situation though - the governor might well have a valid point.
Hide / Show Replies