I am not connecting the dots between Aspirin or LASIK to injuring animals for pleasure.

Sure. The shape of the argument is “If X were proposed today, it would be considered unacceptable. This is evidence that X is bad. This is evidence that X is only permitted because of grandfathering”.

If you substitute X with anything, the conclusion “This is evidence that X is only permitted because of grandfathering” holds up.

If you substitute X with some things, the conclusion “This is evidence that X is bad” holds up sometimes and not others.

Therefore, we must conclude that the X’s badness comes from elsewhere, not from present society objecting to a proposal for X.

Essentially, the bull run is bad for reasons that arise from animal cruelty not for reasons that arise from society’s refusal of permitting bull runs today.

I object to the argument, not the conclusion.

The obvious subtext however is that the running of the bulls would not be allowed today for moral reasons. That there are other reasons for which something may not be accepted in modern times if suddenly introduced is irrelevant.

The point is that there’s nothing superior about the present. There’s lots of present poor morality.

In fact, there are many things that violate present morality which are nonetheless right.

> In fact, there are many things that violate present morality which are nonetheless right.

Such as?

That lack of constant supervision of children is evidence of bad parenting.

I don’t think “constant supervision” is considered moral by the majority of people.

Most people I know consider it moral to supervise kids in new or dangerous situations.

Parenting from my experience is many shades of grey rather than “right” vs. “wrong”.

The magic is the question of “dangerous”. The spectrum of “dangerous” includes “played in a park by herself at 9 yo” (the Debra Harrell situation). What little survey data we have has people agreeing with that being dangerous. A majority believe 12 to be too young.

When I was 12 I was riding public transport one hour to school and back. My brother was 7. I was there as backup for him but he could do it by himself. And if he got lost, he’d have found his way home by asking local shops for instructions.

My parents would have been “neglectful” by this metric but both he and I loved this freedom. We were both loved and cared for and were top students. They would have been scared if he got lost but it wouldn’t be grounds for revocation of freedom.

My parents were right. I am right. This majority of people who want me to chop my kids off at the knees are wrong.

> My parents were right. I am right. This majority of people who want me to chop my kids off at the knees are wrong.

I’m glad they were the right parents for you.

I’m a parent too, and I wouldn’t be ready to call a parent right or wrong based on being on either side of those situations.

Every child is different. There are certainly some that thrive with more freedom and others that need more structure and direct participation.

Also, every time and region is different. I’d hope people parent differently in high crime areas vs. low crime areas. And pedestrian friendly / public transportation friendly areas vs. not.

I agree that “dangerous” is a subjective metric, and that’s why morally good parenting feels to me more like a spectrum than an absolute.

I agree with you entirely, but while I would permit them to parent how they desire, they want to constrain me, so the relationship isn't symmetric. I have no problem with other people helicopter-parenting their kids. Just leave me and my family be. But that's not what most Americans want. They want to set the state on people like me.