6 ms·

Actually after reading the bill you linked (apologies I was looking at the other states bills) you left out the main point that does actually reduce my "apocaly

by vuln 4y ago

Actually after reading the bill you linked (apologies I was looking at the other states bills) you left out the main point that does actually reduce my "apocalyptic fears" IV) REMAINING IN A HOME OR OTHER LOCATION THAT A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR LEGAL CUSTODIAN WOULD CONSIDER SAFE FOR THE CHILD. So not roaming around the city or in a random location. A _safe_ location.

lolinder 4y ago
I left out all the examples because they are "including but not limited to"—the text I included is the main bit that defines what the principle of the law actually is, the bullets are given by way of example and to spell out specific cases that should never be left to a judge to interpret. If a parent could reasonably decide that a child should be allowed to roam free, taking into account that child's maturity, this law would allow that parent to decide that.
- vuln 4y ago
  _A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT_ can decide that their child should be allowed to roam free at _HOME_ or _A SAFE LOCATION_. Now who gets to decide what a _reasonable and prudent parent_ is?
  - lolinder 4y ago
    No, you're restricting it more than the law calls for. A child is not neglected when they are allowed to participate in any activities that a reasonable and prudent parent would judge to be within their capabilities. You're getting too fixated on that one example, and there are a lot of places in the US where a child of a certain age can and should be allowed to roam pretty much anywhere. You're correct the language does leave it up to judicial interpretation, and I find that to be a weakness in the law, because it leaves too much room for police and CPS to claim that they thought they were doing the right thing.
    - vuln 4y ago
      I think they should restrict activity in the way I understood it. Restrict to home and or a safe location and remove the judicial interpretation. I would be 100% fine with that.
      - mtrower 4y ago
        This is how you get children who never grow up able to take care of themselves. All of those things you're so worried about children doing? To the extent they happen at all, you're just pushing those things off until they're 18, delaying the developmental process and shoving those growing pains into the workforce and adult society. Moreover, it's hard to learn how to cope with independence without some measure of... independence. Another thing you don't want to be first learning at 18. I strongly suggest you put down the devices and go live a little. As others have explained, social media feeds are not in any way an accurate or reasonable reflection of societal norms.

by vuln 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago

I left out all the examples because they are "including but not limited to"—the text I included is the main bit that defines what the principle of the law actually is, the bullets are given by way of example and to spell out specific cases that should never be left to a judge to interpret. If a parent could reasonably decide that a child should be allowed to roam free, taking into account that child's maturity, this law would allow that parent to decide that.

vuln 4y ago
_A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PARENT_ can decide that their child should be allowed to roam free at _HOME_ or _A SAFE LOCATION_. Now who gets to decide what a _reasonable and prudent parent_ is?
- lolinder 4y ago
  No, you're restricting it more than the law calls for. A child is not neglected when they are allowed to participate in any activities that a reasonable and prudent parent would judge to be within their capabilities. You're getting too fixated on that one example, and there are a lot of places in the US where a child of a certain age can and should be allowed to roam pretty much anywhere. You're correct the language does leave it up to judicial interpretation, and I find that to be a weakness in the law, because it leaves too much room for police and CPS to claim that they thought they were doing the right thing.
  - vuln 4y ago
    I think they should restrict activity in the way I understood it. Restrict to home and or a safe location and remove the judicial interpretation. I would be 100% fine with that.
    - mtrower 4y ago
      This is how you get children who never grow up able to take care of themselves. All of those things you're so worried about children doing? To the extent they happen at all, you're just pushing those things off until they're 18, delaying the developmental process and shoving those growing pains into the workforce and adult society. Moreover, it's hard to learn how to cope with independence without some measure of... independence. Another thing you don't want to be first learning at 18. I strongly suggest you put down the devices and go live a little. As others have explained, social media feeds are not in any way an accurate or reasonable reflection of societal norms.