You seem a bit bitter about my audacity in making a value judgment on what is reasonable. Even mocking me about thinking my judgment is the only universal standard.
Interesting. After much debate, no post (that I've seen) on your side has weighed in on whether or not the actions of the bus driver were reasonable in themselves--without the context of the rights of the parents, or the limitations of being a bus driver, or something about tax money.
I never meant to disinvest anyone from weighing in on it, you avoided it by your own accord. After so many posts, I have to take this as an admission that you are wrong.
Unless, as others desperately invested in your side of the argument have asserted, that parents have some kind of absolute right to control what their kids here in the public schools
Now you are even calling people on your own side of the arguments names. Dianna may have been mistaken when she insisted that either the parents or the state have control over what their kids are exposed to, and she did make it very clear there was no other possible alternatives...and she therefore concluded the right should go to the parents.
This may be a silly fallacious argument, but it does not mean she either made of straw, nor does it mean she is really a man!
After all, Andy Knows Best
Not always. I am quite fallible. Like a few posts back when I took "my ursine friend" to be an insult--later I looked it up and found it meant "bear like"--appropriate considering my screen name (and understandably I expect you will point this out in a post I have not read yet). So no I am certainly not always right. Just because you are getting creamed in this debate does not mean I'm arrogant.
Oh, I don't think so. If anything, you are the one imposing context on the situation, by attempting to draw a completely arbitrary line between facts you like, and facts you don't like. I submit that for bus drivers to engage in such behavior is wrong, period, regardless of context, whereas you have managed to rediscover the joys of situational ethics by claiming that facts X, Y, and Z - being good God-fearing conservative facts, of course - are somehow acceptable on the schoolbus, as opposed to facts A, B, and C - dirty commie homo hippy facts, we presume - which are unacceptable. I certainly understand why you want to pretend that you've got some sort of firm moral North Star guiding your posts, but the reality is, you don't, and everyone can see that.
Now you are even calling people on your own side of the arguments names. Dianna may have been mistaken when she insisted that either the parents or the state have control over what their kids are exposed to, and she did make it very clear there was no other possible alternatives...and she therefore concluded the right should go to the parents.
When all else fails, you'll resort to silly semantic games. You have the right to get married. Is that right absolute? Of course not - try marrying your pet fish, and you'll be disabused rather quickly of the notion that having the right to do something is the same as that right being absolute. You argue against a point that no one has made, and that is the very dictionary definition of strawman argumentation, whether you care to admit it or not.
And then your chance to get your revenge in the "gotcha" contest...and man, oh man you blew it.
See, there's your problem. Yours truly is discussing the issue at hand, and finding himself squaring off against a dillettante who has nothing to offer but rhetorical gimmicks and half-baked attempts to score "gotcha" points. Well, okay - you just go ahead and throw in a bit of witty repartee as you see fit. In the mean time, the adults will be over there having a serious discussion about serious issues. Someday you can get the stamp that says "Valid Only When Accompanied By An Adult!" removed from your freeper card, and join us thereafter.