looking at more old TCS posts. here's an important idea, though not one I'd forgotten about:
Fallibillity, does not imply any particular mistake. No real-life failure can ever be blamed on fallibility. which may sound kinda "duh". but ppl ignore this quite often.
for example, sum1 might mention hitting his kid once, and say he was taken over by passion (a diff error) and that mistakes happen (bingo). the fact that mistakes happen, in no way excuses this particular one, whihc was avoidable.
the problem with the passion excuse is all the passion means is that he was in the right environment to act on a facet of his personality that he usually doesn't.
p: if ya constrain sum1's choices, ur responsible for making the constraint not hurt person p: having a kid, constrains kid's choices b/c "not be born" is out, ie ya make person live c: parents r responsible for making being born not hurt kid
i'm reading my old TCS posts. one esp cool feature, is rediscovering good ideas *of my own* that i'd forgotten. here's one:
Sometimes there are arguments about what things should be offered to kids. Some people acknowledge they should let their kids try things the kids might like, but then deny that kids might like ice cream, or chocolate, or whatever. And then people debate this. But doesn't the very fact that the item is worth debating, mean the kid *might* like it? By the very act of arguing about it, the anti-ice cream people lose the argument.