On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:15:35 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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.

No, I'm not. It isn't my job to make the determination. That's what
regulatory agencies exist for.

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

Well, as a convicted abuser yourself, that hardly surprises me.

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?

No. But I don't require that societal norms be OK with me.