4 ms·

Again, you fail to describe any clear line. In fact, you indicate that there is no clear line by providing an example of a child whose line is different from th

Again, you fail to describe any clear line. In fact, you indicate that there is no clear line by providing an example of a child whose line is different from that of another kid. The medium isn’t the important bit, btw, so you needn’t get hung up on books instead of, say, television or school programmes. The point is that you claim a “clear line” when there is no such thing.

lr4444lr 5y ago
I already stated in multiple ways that the "clear line" is taking deliberate care in programming for children to ensure first and foremost that it won't be likely to any significant degree to rob them of their innocence, a term which I explained further for you. My citation of the example of a child with autism was an exception for a standard of reasonableness when assessing this due diligence. Here's another one in the same vein: some kid has a finger bitten off at age 4 by a rabid dog, and now has a phobia of all dogs. Does that mean content creators are reckless if they include a cartoon dog that barks angrily at someone? Obviously you're dealing with a rare exception that perhaps could be fixed with some standard of a content index for special cases. If you're going to continue to pretend that this is still all super subjective, I'm gonna have to assume you're not arguing in good faith anymore. There will not be any symbolically notated theorem forthcoming on this topic. Simply put, you can have a culturally relative definition of content appropriateness and still understand this concept. To your example, premarital sex is a REALLY bad thing to get caught doing in some Arab countries. So yeah, in THOSE countries, the Danish books as you describe might be considered abusive to give to minors if they are demonstrably seen to promote sexual behavior that would harm the children's standing in those societies.

lr4444lr 5y ago

I already stated in multiple ways that the "clear line" is taking deliberate care in programming for children to ensure first and foremost that it won't be likely to any significant degree to rob them of their innocence, a term which I explained further for you. My citation of the example of a child with autism was an exception for a standard of reasonableness when assessing this due diligence. Here's another one in the same vein: some kid has a finger bitten off at age 4 by a rabid dog, and now has a phobia of all dogs. Does that mean content creators are reckless if they include a cartoon dog that barks angrily at someone? Obviously you're dealing with a rare exception that perhaps could be fixed with some standard of a content index for special cases. If you're going to continue to pretend that this is still all super subjective, I'm gonna have to assume you're not arguing in good faith anymore. There will not be any symbolically notated theorem forthcoming on this topic. Simply put, you can have a culturally relative definition of content appropriateness and still understand this concept. To your example, premarital sex is a REALLY bad thing to get caught doing in some Arab countries. So yeah, in THOSE countries, the Danish books as you describe might be considered abusive to give to minors if they are demonstrably seen to promote sexual behavior that would harm the children's standing in those societies.