3 ms·
You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman. That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim t
by GloomyBoots 3y ago
You’re intentionally acting obtuse and missing the point to accuse me of a strawman.
That point wasn’t the sum nor the thrust of what I said, nor did I claim that the person I was responding to was personally putting that forward. Your reply, however, is both categorically untrue and an actual strawman. In such debates it constantly comes up that porn is “a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children. It’s highly doubtful that you’ve missed this if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the conversations around this. That, plus your intentional disregarding of the actual thrust of my argument, indicates that you aren’t acting in good faith.
Edit: and a soft-pedaled version of the same argument for children to be able to watch porn comes up in this very article
- seattle_spring 3y ago> a good, healthy way for children to explore sexuality” and that parents who want to restrict access are actively harming their children Again, no one is saying this. This is a completely made up scenario. It's not even related to the OP, which is about legal adults being blocked as a side-effect of poorly implemented age restriction verification. Are you referring to this line, and somehow changing "not really harmful" to "totally awesome", and "older teenagers" to "all children"? And then saying that this one little offhand line is what the plaintiff actually is bringing this lawsuit for? > But I’ll also say this: Is it really a problem if 16- or 17-year-olds watch some porn? Because, you know... Literal definition of a strawman: > an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument