But it's hard to see how denying someone the right to believe stupid stuff would be desirable, or enforceable.
Undesirable, because you have to admit your own fallibility. Even if your argument is strong, humans have been known to make mistakes.
Unenforceable, because... well, because.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:45,
Share,
Reply)
Its problematic because there used to be a clear line between medical science and alternative therapies
but, now medical science has been found to be heavily skewed by pharmaceutical companies
And there's the whole issue of what a rational belief is, and how to put that in law. Are they beliefs based on a rational method, or are they beliefs that are held by the majority (both of these definitions of rationality are used in cases of medical negligence).
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:57, Share, Reply)
I think there's a big difference between tolerating stupidity and enshrining that tolerance in law
A civil society should be able to tolerate stupidity but should also strive towards reducing it. A law protecting it as a human right is neither helpful or desirable.
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 13:58, Share, Reply)
I think that's enshrined in laws guaranteeing access to education
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 14:01, Share, Reply)
access to education is guaranteed as a human right in this act
but so is the right of parents to be able to expect an education for their children that conforms with their religious convictions, regardless of how wrongheaded those convictions might be.
That's the most worrying bit.
(, Tue 30 Sep 2014, 14:18, Share, Reply)