My core value judgement is that discrimination often exists for good reason, and that if discrimination is unfair, it should usually be replaced with fairer discrimination. You can call my position a framework or a value judgement, but the fact is that it's both. That is the core of what I want to argue with you about.
I genuinely could not care less about whether bars restrict alcohol consumption to 8 year olds to prevent brain damage, or whether they restrict alcohol consumption to 23 year olds, or whether they don't serve alcohol to anybody, or even whether they are filling up baby bottles with alcohol and handing them out to mothers. There's a reason I never looked up the scientific data. It's because I never cared about this specific value judgement other than as an example.
In 2.1 you say my second example only works if experiences among people of a certain age group are homogenous. This is such a bizzare accusation to me. Do you even know what my position is? Do you think I agree with blanket age-based media restrictions fron guardians? Would you be surprised if I told you that I agree they are stupid and unfair? Did I say anything which is fundamentally incompatible with that position? Be a bit more creative please!
In 2.2 you DO correctly deduce my position, that external EVENTS provide people with necessary context and are therefore indicators of a person's ability to effectively interpret media with mature themes.
However, in 2.3 you contradict your own understanding of my position by wrongly claiming that my position is based on a lack of knowledge of extreme ACTIONS. (Such as crass, violent, and morally ambiguous actions depicted in mature shows.)
My discrimination is intended to be based on real-world external events. Wouldn't you agree that's far more fair and rational than blanket age-based discrimination? If the discrimination is based on events rather than age, mental maturity, or knowledge of extreme actions, then doesn't that eliminate the feedback loop? Sure, the same guardian restricting media may also be wrongly preventing their ward from experiencing enriching real-world external events, but in such a case we can agree that it's the wrongful sheltering that's the problem, and that media restrictions are just a distraction? (If not the single good thing the guardian is doing...)
Isn't it primarily life experiences that help a person to grow rather than abstract and unrealistic TV shows with no corresponding source of truth for the watcher to draw from?
