You're (wilfully?) misunderstanding. No one is saying that laws somehow magically cease to apply to unusual events (wut?). The argument is that good legislative lawmaking is based on data and evidence. Rushing to make legislation to respond to (media coverage of) freak occurrences rarely leads to good lawmaking.

Try to engage in good faith. You don't really think that people don't know what child labour is illegal, and require a Wiki link to elucidate this obscure fact. You're just performing outrage. Why do so? What benefit does doing so bring you, or anyone else?

No, you literally wrote "it’s generally a bad idea to legislate for over a third of a billion of humans on the basis of rare freak accidents".

> Rushing to make legislation to respond to (media coverage of) freak occurrences rarely leads to good lawmaking.

I agree. Yet, laws against child labor already exist and they work as a "blanket" safety mechanism against all threats to children, regardless of what incident might happen.

> Try to engage in good faith. ... You're just performing outrage.

Please do not accuse other people of acting in bad faith.

> No, you literally wrote "it’s generally a bad idea to legislate for over a third of a billion of humans on the basis of rare freak accidents".

I genuinely have no idea what your point is. The most generous reading I can give this is that you took my words to be an assertion that we should abolish all laws relating to workplace accidents, but that is a farcical misinterpretation. Both on its face, but especially in the context of the wider discussion.

> I agree. Yet, laws against child labor already exist and they work as a "blanket" safety mechanism against all threats to children, regardless of what incident might happen.

Of course they do. I'm unsure why this requires explanation. What's the alternative? Non-blanket child labour laws? What would that even look like? Again, I have no idea what your point is.

> Please do not accuse other people of acting in bad faith.

This exchange began when you accused me, in a one line comment, of finding the death of children acceptable. If that was intended to be a good faith, constructive comment, I'm happy to hear how exactly.

More broadly, I reject your view that bad faith comments ought not be called out. Why not? In the best case, it helps a person become aware that they're not engaging constructively; alternatively, it's informative for others, and can help them from entering into a pointless discussion.