Burn wrote: Without citing evidence (seeing as i'm at work and don't have time to search the net), if you believe that children can't be psychologically affected by witnessing a traumatic event, then why do they send counsellors to schools where something has happened to another student, be it a car accident or victim of mass shooting?
I never said that they can't be. I said that I'd like to see some evidence saying that they are. Considering that he's advocating taking the right to see something away from a group of people, I firmly believe that more than assumed "common sense" in in order.
Burn wrote:And while you're sending Shadowman on his merry hunt for evidence, can you produce any evidence of your own to back up your disbelief?
Are you asking me to prove a negative? How am I to do that? Find everybody who's ever seen a news report about a child murderer as a child and find out if they're messed up?
Burn wrote:Or is it a simple case of "this is my opinion, prove it wrong" without making an effort to back up your own opinion?
In my opinion, when suggesting that a group of people be banned from being able to do something, evidence is required. Evidence shows that alcohol impairs motor skills, so the right to drive while intoxicated is taken away. Evidence shows that smoking is one of the major causes of lung cancer, so the right to smoke is restricted to people above the age of consent. If there is evidence to suggest that seeing a news report about a child murderer is likely to lead to serious psychological problems for children, then the right to see them may rightfully be restricted. However, such evidence must be presented in order to reach that conclusion.
I don't think I'm being unfair here. If you're going to argue in favor of restriction or censorship, then kindly present evidence in favor of your argument. Show that there's a danger. If there's not, then there is no reason to restrict or censor.