Implicit in satirical mockery is a comparison between the facetious example and the argument of one's interlocutor, insofar as the reader is invited to draw a disfavorable conclusion about the argument based on the satirical mockery. However, when the satirical mockery fundamentally misrepresents the argument it is deployed against, one does not get to hide behind "satirical mockery" as an excuse for arguing dishonestly.
Now that is an excellent example of a straw man fallacy on your part. I am not demanding to be the sole arbitrator of what is reasonable.
Why, of course you are - these parents have no grounds to object because their objections are a priori unreasonable. That is exactly what you have claimed here, thereby effectively defining the limits of reasonable and unreasonable objections for everyone. You may not come out and say it in so many words - not surprisingly - but that's what it boils down to.
Lacking ESP, I can not be 100% sure of your exact motivations and emotional state. For myself this does not constitute "fevered imaginings" but "educated guesses".
Or you could, you know, just stay away from the "educated guesses" about motivations altogether, and concentrate instead on the words in front of you, and what they actually say. You may not have ESP, but obviously you have something that causes you to believe that you can glean something as abstract as "motivation" or "emotional state" from black ASCII text on a white background.
My beef with you is that you got his goat, and ridiculed him for his emotional reaction. Now you act like there is no emotional component to your debate.
If I were acting on emotion, I'd probably agree with you in your assessment of the situation. Reason suggests, however, that letting things like this slide cedes any sort of moral high ground to the left, and legitimizes for them a stick they're already far too free with. Being able to separate our emotional desires from a rational assessment of right and wrong is what separates us from the left, and other assorted lower animals. Take that as you will.
And it may seem patronizing of me, but I just wish you could be a little more light hearted about this whole thing--without needing to dismiss me as some kind of obnoxious clown
A person who spends his days in public wearing a red rubber nose and big floppy shoes hardly has grounds to complain when he is perceived as a clown. Do you wish to advance a serious argument, or do you wish to engage in sarcastic mockery, because as it stands right now, you're not getting very far on either substance or style - you might as well concentrate on one or the other, rather than letting me spank you for both.
This was not a premise in my original postings, but a well established conclusion. I am sorry, but I do not find it practical to keep reiterating my arguments. The last time I did it, a poster on your side of the argument actually insisted that the fact I made any original assumptions itself was a fallacy. She concluded: "Assumptions are worthless unless you can prove them".
Please forgive me if I fail to live up to this standard, or if I feel a bit exasperated (unlike some, I have to work hard not to let emotion influence my postings) I do still welcome specific challenges to my original assumptions which suggest alternate starting points, and I welcome critical analysis of my arguments, but I must ask you to go back and dig them up...sorry.
On the other hand, do you have a coherent argument that concludes that the parents were being reasonable in their complaint?