3 ms·
I didn’t mention anything about the state. There is no hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with respecting one or the other. There are certain human rights which
by colechristensen 4y ago
I didn’t mention anything about the state. There is no hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with respecting one or the other. There are certain human rights which are wrong to violate no matter who does it or to whom. Basic knowledge of and discussion of human sexuality is one of those rights.
The state should be involved in regulating very powerful tools that allow someone to dig in and shape the communication and information available to others. “Big brother” needs to be stopped whether it is a nation or an overbearing parent.
- chiefalchemist 4y agoLinks to those rights pleases. Links to the laws (in the USA) that say parents forfeit their rights to those. Either way, that child is not entitled to an unfiltered internet, especially when the parents might suffer legal jeopardy if that became public knowledge. You're taking these children out of context, putting them on an island, and then too strongly suggesting you know better than their parents. Links to that precedent please. Parents have no right. Kids do. And you're the arbitrator? Yes, sorry, there's plenty of hypocrisy in that scenario.