because the toy was a mockup of something good and right.
I can't find the emoticon for the sound I'm making
I worry that we get a little to far into the "intent" portion of what's appropriate... and I fear into the nuances we don't know.
I don't think the issue is the soldier, but the firearm (and soldiers outside of combat zones are rarely armed).
I think, perhaps, that it's simpler to simply ban weapons and mock-ups of weapons (which appears to be what they did). If that means that some kid that wants to show support for the troops has to avoid to weapons in his speech: I don't see that as a terribly high price to pay.
Not intending to sound difficult: but perhaps the kid with the pot leaf supports plants: which are good.
Alternately: Can he dress up like a soldier to express his support? When he does, can he bring his assault rifle?
I know that's a reducto-ad-abserdum, but I'm pretty sure you would oppose allowing that: and so the discussion does not seem to be, as you frame it, support of soldiers-vs-non-support: but whether there are limits in how you can express that support and what those limits should be... which is, I suppose, my point.
it's very black and white to me. quote from the article, text put in bold by me.
two words: school. minor.
you're very lucky to have kids that can make the right decisions for themselves. mine can't.
I think you misunderstand me: my actual position is that I support both bans.
where does your kid study? do you have kids?
i'd like to visit them and tell them how harmless the leaf is, and how it's illegal nature is just the government being envious, etc. etc.
your genius child should see right through me.
After we explain how harmless guns are?
I think I've failed to convey an accurate depiction of my point
. I suppose if I have a theme in threads like this it's to point out that even people who think they view in black-and-white really do not... to try to align the reality of how someone thinks with their self-perception of that thought.
