4 ms·

Banning children from accessing things proven to be harmful to children does not a dictator make. Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to dr

• wartywhoa23 10mo ago
  > Or else you'd be rallying just as hard to allow children to drink alcohol Why? I don't have a threshold at 127 in my luminance channel. Just a reminder - what children are allowed or not is not any government's business, it's parents' one. Which requires tearing their asses off from sofas and their eyes from screens and actually talk to their children and be in the know of their circles and activities.
  • immibis 10mo ago
    I'm glad you agree that if a child happens to be born to parents who aren't very good at parenting, they deserve to suffer. Basically if a child's parents smoke around them and give them lung cancer, all we should do is yell at them and moan on the internet, not actually do anything (via the government) to prevent it. Nothing you've said contradicts that you think the government should not forbid children from buying alcohol. Social media appears to be more harmful to a child than low quantities of alcohol, but less harmful than lung cancer.
    • wartywhoa23 10mo ago
      I recommend you studying some history, especially that of Germany since 1920 till 1945, to help yourself part with the illusion that the government's overreaching care has anything to do with actual care, and to finally grok the essense of the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      • immibis 10mo ago
        Oh yeah. A government did bad things, therefore, everything a government does is bad. Impeccable logic.