5 ms·

We don't apply this principle to something like peanut allergies. "If your kid touches a peanut, that's on you as a parent"? No, people recognized that peanuts

We don't apply this principle to something like peanut allergies. "If your kid touches a peanut, that's on you as a parent"? No, people recognized that peanuts are harmful enough to a certain segment of the population that it's worth making changes, even changes that might inconvenience others. Besides, I'm not sure why you think that parents are able to be 100% in control of things that their children see/eat/etc. Should we legalize nudity on billboards, and would your suggestion then be to "simply drive on different roads"?

scarface74 3y ago
Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  There's plenty of room between "unrestricted" and "stopped". You're not arguing that "laws don't actually do anything", right?
- George83728 3y ago
  Laws against murder haven't stopped murder, so I guess those laws are useless. Gun control laws? Japan's ex-PM got blown away by a wacko with a homemade shotgun, so I guess gun control laws just don't work. Nevermind the rate of gun violence in Japan.. it's all or nothing.
  - monetus 3y ago
    This doesn't directly add to or take from your point, because obviously laws have a purpose - that assassin was motivated by an extreme religious affiliation to the lawmakers. There is irony here.
    - George83728 3y ago
      I'm not seeing the irony, unless you believe that opposition to pornography being available to kids must necessarily have a religious motive. I oppose it, and I am an atheist.
      - monetus 3y ago
        It doesn't have to for anyone, but does in this instance as the lawmakers in question are motivated by their affiliation with a religion.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  "These are very effective but not perfectly effective" is the lamest possible "gotcha!" in these kinds of discussions.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html > In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.1 Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. However, large percentages of middle and high school students reported past-year marijuana vaping—8% of eighth graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders.
    - yamtaddle 3y ago
      I remember those surveys. I did so much meth.
      - scarface74 3y ago
        You really don’t think a lot of teenagers are smoking weed?
        yamtaddle 3y ago
        > Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed. > Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. I've got a guess about why the number might be rising, and it rhymes with "egalization", in which case, yes, making drugs illegal reduced use of drugs. I guarantee fewer people in general, including fewer kids, smoked when it was illegal, and less was consumed overall. I'd further bet there's a lot less pot consumption by kids now, than there would be if dispensaries didn't verify age. But I also suspect it's just kinda hard to get clean data about teen drug use. I'd also guess the real figures are extremely uneven (that "8% of eighth graders", if accurate, probably means 20% some places and 2% in others) and high use correlates to places where it's easy to get, which supports the notion that carding or outlawing should reduce use (since they make it harder to get). (Nb. I'm pro-legalization, I just think carding and outlawing almost certainly strongly curb use, though of course they don't stop it completely, and I think "this wasn't perfectly effective, so it's necessarily useless" isn't a strong point in most situations)
evandale 3y ago
The consequence of exposing a kid with a peanut allergy to a peanut can be death. Watching hardcore porn won't kill a kid.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  It will harm a kid, and asking a website to figure out how to verify an age is far less burdensome than taking PB&Js out of kid lunches.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Brendinooo 3y ago
      “Sky wizard” is a bright red flag for a bad-faith argument, so I’m not going to do a bunch of research for you. Search around for voices of people who have struggled with porn addiction. If you think it’s a purely religious thing, you’re mistaken.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - vidarh 3y ago
        Having followed this space for ~30+ years, I've yet to see any research that shows more than marginal and subjective effects at any kind of scale. Including in meta-studies. Sure, some people can struggle with addiction to porn, just as they can to chocolate and almost anything else. We don't respond with age verification to the vast majority of those other things. Since I haven't brought up "sky wizard", perhaps if you have any actual evidence of harm you might show me?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - cmh89 3y ago
YellOh 3y ago
What does society do to solve the peanut problem? Outside of schools, it seems totally on the parent to stop the kid from eating peanuts. The parent does the grocery shopping, asks the right questions when taking the kid to a restaurant, and lets friends/other caregivers know not to give peanuts to the child. People do "make changes" for specific allergies & food restrictions by making the information available & creating some allergen-free zones (just like adult content is currently kept out of schools and family-friendly locations, and there are adult-content warnings most times) but peanut access is absolutely currently up to the parent, in general. I'm not even sure what the billboard thing is getting at. We shouldn't have nudity on billboards (except female breasts in nonsexual contexts), just like we shouldn't keep peanuts where we know anyone allergic has to be. Counter-hypothetical: it would be incredibly stupid to lock up peanut butter because kids might take a $5 bill to the store and buy the clearly-labelled jar.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  > What does society do to solve the peanut problem? We mandate labeling. We could not do that and just say "parents, you must run a peanut-detection lab or have extremely restricted diets of only food you make yourself, to keep your kids safe", but we don't.
  - YellOh 3y ago
    I have no issue with labelling requirements for large commercial operations. To be honest I thought we already had that for adult content, given the specific TV/radio limits and the "confirm you're 18" popups so popular on the web. I realize I'm beating a dead analogy here, but I don't think we should impose those labelling restrictions on independent hobbyist websites, just like we don't require licensing or ingredient labelling for small bake sales. But even if we did, "label obviously-adult content" would be way more reasonable than "collect personal information to verify the real-life identity of site visitors, and log this sensitive data so it can be accessed (/hacked) later"
pjlegato 3y ago
Writing "produced on equipment that also processes peanuts" on a food label is hardly inconveniencing others. It's still very much on the parents to prevent harm to their peanut-allergic children. As an aside, the sharp rise in nut allergies is itself an unintended consequence of another well-meaning attempt at social engineering: about 30 years ago, manufacturers began printing "CHOKING HAZARD: DO NOT FEED NUTS TO CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD" on nut labels. Many parents complied, and that lack of any early exposure to nut proteins resulted in a massive increase in life-threatening nut allergies among children.
- Brendinooo 3y ago
  Do you have kids in school? Our kids aren’t allowed to pack peanuts in their lunches because parents can’t put an allergic kid in a cafeteria otherwise.

scarface74 3y ago

Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed.

Brendinooo 3y ago
There's plenty of room between "unrestricted" and "stopped". You're not arguing that "laws don't actually do anything", right?
George83728 3y ago
Laws against murder haven't stopped murder, so I guess those laws are useless. Gun control laws? Japan's ex-PM got blown away by a wacko with a homemade shotgun, so I guess gun control laws just don't work. Nevermind the rate of gun violence in Japan.. it's all or nothing.
- monetus 3y ago
  This doesn't directly add to or take from your point, because obviously laws have a purpose - that assassin was motivated by an extreme religious affiliation to the lawmakers. There is irony here.
  - George83728 3y ago
    I'm not seeing the irony, unless you believe that opposition to pornography being available to kids must necessarily have a religious motive. I oppose it, and I am an atheist.
    - monetus 3y ago
      It doesn't have to for anyone, but does in this instance as the lawmakers in question are motivated by their affiliation with a religion.
yamtaddle 3y ago
"These are very effective but not perfectly effective" is the lamest possible "gotcha!" in these kinds of discussions.
- scarface74 3y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html > In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.1 Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. However, large percentages of middle and high school students reported past-year marijuana vaping—8% of eighth graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders.
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    I remember those surveys. I did so much meth.
    - scarface74 3y ago
      You really don’t think a lot of teenagers are smoking weed?
      - yamtaddle 3y ago
        > Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed. > Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. I've got a guess about why the number might be rising, and it rhymes with "egalization", in which case, yes, making drugs illegal reduced use of drugs. I guarantee fewer people in general, including fewer kids, smoked when it was illegal, and less was consumed overall. I'd further bet there's a lot less pot consumption by kids now, than there would be if dispensaries didn't verify age. But I also suspect it's just kinda hard to get clean data about teen drug use. I'd also guess the real figures are extremely uneven (that "8% of eighth graders", if accurate, probably means 20% some places and 2% in others) and high use correlates to places where it's easy to get, which supports the notion that carding or outlawing should reduce use (since they make it harder to get). (Nb. I'm pro-legalization, I just think carding and outlawing almost certainly strongly curb use, though of course they don't stop it completely, and I think "this wasn't perfectly effective, so it's necessarily useless" isn't a strong point in most situations)

evandale 3y ago

The consequence of exposing a kid with a peanut allergy to a peanut can be death. Watching hardcore porn won't kill a kid.

Brendinooo 3y ago
It will harm a kid, and asking a website to figure out how to verify an age is far less burdensome than taking PB&Js out of kid lunches.
- sophacles 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Brendinooo 3y ago
    “Sky wizard” is a bright red flag for a bad-faith argument, so I’m not going to do a bunch of research for you. Search around for voices of people who have struggled with porn addiction. If you think it’s a purely religious thing, you’re mistaken.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Having followed this space for ~30+ years, I've yet to see any research that shows more than marginal and subjective effects at any kind of scale. Including in meta-studies. Sure, some people can struggle with addiction to porn, just as they can to chocolate and almost anything else. We don't respond with age verification to the vast majority of those other things. Since I haven't brought up "sky wizard", perhaps if you have any actual evidence of harm you might show me?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- cmh89 3y ago

YellOh 3y ago

What does society do to solve the peanut problem? Outside of schools, it seems totally on the parent to stop the kid from eating peanuts. The parent does the grocery shopping, asks the right questions when taking the kid to a restaurant, and lets friends/other caregivers know not to give peanuts to the child. People do "make changes" for specific allergies & food restrictions by making the information available & creating some allergen-free zones (just like adult content is currently kept out of schools and family-friendly locations, and there are adult-content warnings most times) but peanut access is absolutely currently up to the parent, in general. I'm not even sure what the billboard thing is getting at. We shouldn't have nudity on billboards (except female breasts in nonsexual contexts), just like we shouldn't keep peanuts where we know anyone allergic has to be. Counter-hypothetical: it would be incredibly stupid to lock up peanut butter because kids might take a $5 bill to the store and buy the clearly-labelled jar.

yamtaddle 3y ago
> What does society do to solve the peanut problem? We mandate labeling. We could not do that and just say "parents, you must run a peanut-detection lab or have extremely restricted diets of only food you make yourself, to keep your kids safe", but we don't.
- YellOh 3y ago
  I have no issue with labelling requirements for large commercial operations. To be honest I thought we already had that for adult content, given the specific TV/radio limits and the "confirm you're 18" popups so popular on the web. I realize I'm beating a dead analogy here, but I don't think we should impose those labelling restrictions on independent hobbyist websites, just like we don't require licensing or ingredient labelling for small bake sales. But even if we did, "label obviously-adult content" would be way more reasonable than "collect personal information to verify the real-life identity of site visitors, and log this sensitive data so it can be accessed (/hacked) later"

pjlegato 3y ago

Writing "produced on equipment that also processes peanuts" on a food label is hardly inconveniencing others. It's still very much on the parents to prevent harm to their peanut-allergic children. As an aside, the sharp rise in nut allergies is itself an unintended consequence of another well-meaning attempt at social engineering: about 30 years ago, manufacturers began printing "CHOKING HAZARD: DO NOT FEED NUTS TO CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD" on nut labels. Many parents complied, and that lack of any early exposure to nut proteins resulted in a massive increase in life-threatening nut allergies among children.

Brendinooo 3y ago
Do you have kids in school? Our kids aren’t allowed to pack peanuts in their lunches because parents can’t put an allergic kid in a cafeteria otherwise.