4 ms·

> The problem is the child may be using a device they don't own. It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) shou

by Tozen 4y ago

> The problem is the child may be using a device they don't own. It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state). Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws. It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids. That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults. > ...When I was at school, the way they blocked sites is by setting a proxy in internet explorer. To bypass it you would install a browser on a flash drive and then just browse using that browser... Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable. Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...). So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults. It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults. The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents. Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature. Not just the topic of sex needs to be addressed, but excessive violence or adult themes deemed too difficult to handle at certain ages. So we are usually dealing with what is appropriate and supervision. The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision. The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids. Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them. The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child. Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults. The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state).

_-david-_ 4y ago
Interesting how you didn't really address any of my points. >It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state). You can make the same argument that for requiring IDs for cigarettes, alcohol or guns and yet almost nobody does. That is because people don't think requiring an ID is actually restricting rights. >Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws. You can make this argument about many laws. But again, almost nobody does. Giving speeding tickets, for example, is a "grift" as well. Are you going to argue against them as well? >It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids. Nobody is denying that fact. That doesn't mean that there can't be laws as well. We have laws requiring IDs for cigarettes and alcohol even though it is is the primary responsibility of the parents. >That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults. You are in favor of removing ID requirements and background checks on buying guns, right? If you are not then you believe in "repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults". >Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable. You can make that argument against alcohol laws. Yet I don't think you believe a 5 year old should be allowed to drink a bottle of vodka. >Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...). Correct. This will mostly be for stopping kids from accidentally viewing porn. Not about preventing all viewing of porn by kids. >So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults. So do all laws. >It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults. The state should in theory never know which person is accessing porn with the verification system. Also, states could already get that data by requesting logs from the ISPs so there isn't really a difference. >The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents. Again, nobody is denying this. It is quite interesting how you ignored my points in my previous post about this. We have laws to stop / limit a child's access to a huge amount of things. Unless you are willing to remove laws stopping children from buying alcohol, cigarettes or guns you are holding a double standard. Please let me know your view on IDs on those laws. >Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature. So? >The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision. We agree. >The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids. We agree. > Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them. I agree parents should know. But they can't be with their children 24/7 so having laws seems fine. >The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child. That is what this law is though? >Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults. >The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state). So are 90% of our laws. Nobody bats an eye when we have laws requiring kids to wear helmets. Nobody cares when we ban jay walking. Yet when one of the most addictive things gets a law people lose their minds. I don't think it is a coincidence.

by Tozen 4y ago

_-david-_ 4y ago

Interesting how you didn't really address any of my points. >It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state). You can make the same argument that for requiring IDs for cigarettes, alcohol or guns and yet almost nobody does. That is because people don't think requiring an ID is actually restricting rights. >Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws. You can make this argument about many laws. But again, almost nobody does. Giving speeding tickets, for example, is a "grift" as well. Are you going to argue against them as well? >It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids. Nobody is denying that fact. That doesn't mean that there can't be laws as well. We have laws requiring IDs for cigarettes and alcohol even though it is is the primary responsibility of the parents. >That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults. You are in favor of removing ID requirements and background checks on buying guns, right? If you are not then you believe in "repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults". >Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable. You can make that argument against alcohol laws. Yet I don't think you believe a 5 year old should be allowed to drink a bottle of vodka. >Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...). Correct. This will mostly be for stopping kids from accidentally viewing porn. Not about preventing all viewing of porn by kids. >So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults. So do all laws. >It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults. The state should in theory never know which person is accessing porn with the verification system. Also, states could already get that data by requesting logs from the ISPs so there isn't really a difference. >The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents. Again, nobody is denying this. It is quite interesting how you ignored my points in my previous post about this. We have laws to stop / limit a child's access to a huge amount of things. Unless you are willing to remove laws stopping children from buying alcohol, cigarettes or guns you are holding a double standard. Please let me know your view on IDs on those laws. >Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature. So? >The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision. We agree. >The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids. We agree. > Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them. I agree parents should know. But they can't be with their children 24/7 so having laws seems fine. >The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child. That is what this law is though? >Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults. >The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state). So are 90% of our laws. Nobody bats an eye when we have laws requiring kids to wear helmets. Nobody cares when we ban jay walking. Yet when one of the most addictive things gets a law people lose their minds. I don't think it is a coincidence.