On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 10:23:11 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 04:30:48 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The fairness doctrine attempts to ensure that all political viewpoints
have reasonable access to a limited public resource.

What are the opposing "political viewpoints" to the idea that, for example, there should be affirmation action and quotas for short people?

Whatever the regulatory agency decides. That's the function of a
regulatory agency.

You are evading the question, peterson.


IOW, once society comes to accept that it is a form of child abuse,
laws will follow. 50 years ago you could spank your children. Today,
you mostly cannot. Law follows culture.

Incorrect. Corporal punishment of brats is still perfectly legal, so long as physical injury does not occur. If the brats are -upset- about getting spanked when they misbehave, well, that's the idea.

Depends on where you are. In some jurisdictions, corporal punishment
is illegal. In most, it is regulated. You could most certainly use
corporal punishment in ways 50 years ago that you cannot today. And
because of changing social attitudes, just smacking a kid in public
will identify you to most people as a savage, and may result in calls
to the police and a visit from child protective services.

Actually, if I see a child misbehave and the parents don't deal with the misbehavior, I assume that they are wimps.

I don't propose creating such a law now, because it wouldn't conform
to a societal moral consensus.

If "societal moral consensus" were to be that child labor is OK, then do you want laws to reflect that????

Yes.

So, sweatshops full of kids working full time is OK with you?