08-22-2018, 04:18 AM
Open-d: "BTW, no children should reside in the ERZ, as they are too young to decide, and have a future to consider."
What? It's not as if their lives are at risk. Lava comes, the children move along with their family out of the eruption zone. (I hope you are not offering the safety fanatics' tiresome argument that lava activity is a significant threat to life, like fire and tornadoes.)
Their future? That will be decided by them getting an education and making their own lives. It won't depend on whether they live with their parents in a house in the lava zone for the rest of their lives.
Lava takes their parents' home and possibly harms their economic future?
How does banning children help this? You would want to ban both the parents and the children, so the parents won't lose an asset their children will inherit. To follow suit, we need to ban all people with kids from living in tornado alley and fire-prone California suburbs.
What? It's not as if their lives are at risk. Lava comes, the children move along with their family out of the eruption zone. (I hope you are not offering the safety fanatics' tiresome argument that lava activity is a significant threat to life, like fire and tornadoes.)
Their future? That will be decided by them getting an education and making their own lives. It won't depend on whether they live with their parents in a house in the lava zone for the rest of their lives.
Lava takes their parents' home and possibly harms their economic future?
How does banning children help this? You would want to ban both the parents and the children, so the parents won't lose an asset their children will inherit. To follow suit, we need to ban all people with kids from living in tornado alley and fire-prone California suburbs.