*absurdum. And try telling that to Cicero. It doesn’t “duck” the point, it takes the argument to its logical extreme, as you well know. Your words state that children are not people. The term “yet” is merely a palatable modifier you’re using to justify your belief that children are not fully human. By the way, Google ‘potential people’ and check out the definition. Spoiler alert: it’s not children. Why can’t children be part of “adult society”? What do you even mean by qualifying society with ‘adult’? Children are people. That’s definition enough. If I have to explain it further, you’ve already missed the point. Changing the goalposts to suit specific purposes only serves to undermine the validity of the goalposts. In your argument, you indicated that there is a moment at which a child becomes an adult and takes their rightful place in society. Kindly explain exactly when that moment is. If you’re going to make the argument, you’ll have to defend it. ‘Children’ and ‘adults’ are social constructs. As such, the decision to treat people differently is not based on any inherent differences between humans of one age or another. So please explain: why should ‘children’ be treated differently? A fairly obvious point, but if you feel like you need to remove all personal responsibility after declaring that you know best, then go for it. ...in your opinion. Take responsibility for your words. By denying them you only undermine yourself. You said that children are not people, but rather “potential” people, this indicating that they are not fully human. So you did assert that right.