3 ms·
But what do you mean with "can". Children are exposed to liars, to fools, to the stupid, to the unwise, to the corrupted in malice, to the weak in will... Sinc
by mdp2021 1y ago
But what do you mean with "can".
Children are exposed to liars, to fools, to the stupid, to the unwise, to the corrupted in malice, to the weak in will... Since a very young age.
«Exposing» such frequent faults to children does not «normalize» it. It may, if the child is in a generally bad environment - but then, the target is the core environment, not the outer experience.
- animal_spirits 1y agoYes there are "bad" things children can be exposed to. But the difference is the lifelong real trauma caused by sexual abuse. Yes kids can learn lying from the internet, or see people smoking, etc. But if you are a pre-teen that sexually abuses another pre-teen (which happens _very_ common surprisingly) it has an enormous capacity for harm compared to other "bad" things. With this and that it's much easier to regulate, I think it is worth the trade-offs.
- mdp2021 1y ago> easier to regulate Not really easy, I'd say. > trade-offs If you mean barring general access, than your evaluation is debatable. But especially: if the concern is with some forms of possibly "certified traumatic" depictions (and I believe this would raise a hell of a needed research and nuances revelation), why not just attacking the "certified traumatic" depictions?