371–380 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.
Not really. Yes most kids will see porn before they're 18 but it doesn't damage them or give them the wrong idea about consensual behaviour. If anything I find GenZ a lot more focused on explicit consent than GenX.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies fall under the government. So what a company harvests (to sell more toilet bowl cleaner), is accessible to the government it falls under. By that logic, you should fear companies at least as much as their governments when handing them your data. But companies have additional goals: to increase profit. Which can be achieved by selling more toilet bowl cleaner. But also by externalising harm/pollution/costs,…
Governments have a monopoly on violence, companies generally do not. This fact alone makes the comparison you’re trying to make pretty silly. You have far, far more to fear from the country from which you’re a citizen than the company for which you’re a customer. Read more history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Massacre
Read more history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.
Do you realize you'll end up in fascist dystopia where your children belong to the state, with this line of thinking? Or is that where you want other people to end up while you peddle propagandist fairytales about failed parenting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been working for tens of thousands of years. What changed in the last few decades wasn't parenting or technology. It was the rise of the nanny state where the parents gave up the parenting of their kids and entrusted that to educational institutions instead.
It both works and fails, like many other things. But if you hold the goal that it must never fail in sufficiently high esteem, you invariably end up with a system like the one we have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.
Not really. Yes most kids will see porn before they're 18 but it doesn't damage them or give them the wrong idea about consensual behaviour. If anything I find GenZ a lot more focused on explicit consent than GenX.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.
It's been working for tens of thousands of years. What changed in the last few decades wasn't parenting or technology. It was the rise of the nanny state where the parents gave up the parenting of their kids and entrusted that to educational institutions instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The system we got for this is called parenting And it fails miserably.
>And it fails miserably. No it doesn't. That's just needlessly reductionist doomerist take with no argumentation to back that up. Define failure and success of the system in this context.
Yes it does. If you're of the mindset that drives one to build a nanny state that is. My assumption is the mindset is that any amount of CSA is completely intolerable and that we must try to reach zero cases and there can be no other goal. If that's the framing then parenting alone fails miserably at it.
I think that's a terrible goal, because it leads to the nanny state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [they] wanted Did they? That makes a good amount of difference, you know. Especially when "they" may be a vocal exception. > How is this supposed to prove anything Prove what. Nothing seems to be disproven. Edit: look, if you were trying to negate a "bad A" through an "(also) bad B", review and revise your logic. Which is important because that non-argument has been exploited to bend the political opinion of street…
> Did they? Look, this was a headline I recalled seeing in the news. I do not live in the US, and honestly I'm kinda tired of hearing as much about your (?) politics. If I hadn't used the uncertainty qualifier, I would have been lying. That said, I believe it did pass almost unanimously, coming into effect in 2027 or something. The law in question required all cars come equipped with intoxication detection systems an…
Your assumptions clinging is staggering. Thank Reason that you put '(?)' preliminary marks - that you do not then follow.
> was that the EU itself needs to be entirely abolished
No, I wrote "should never have been born". Abolishing it does not remove the immense damages it caused. You are keeping your analytical processes very loose.
> If you apply that same standard, do you think cessation is what
Of course comparable cases entail comparable judgements?! But the USA, for example, about the destruction of cars the eu perpetrated, install 4-cylinder engines in the same models that in the eu are sold with 3-cylinders to stay within the regulations. So, not specifically comparable in the destructive effort, nor in the effect.
> []
Bad system, powerful entities that are systemically faulty hence damaging, must not be let into activity. As simple as this in principle - it is just logically self-contained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you realize you'll end up in fascist dystopia where your children belong to the state, with this line of thinking? Or is that where you want other people to end up while you peddle propagandist fairytales about failed parenting?
Do you realise the solution is just to accept some kids will wind up as collateral because parenting alone can't solve it, and rather than trying to solve it through technology (which won't work anyway) we have to accept that we'd rather have the crime and our freedom? We can't kid ourselves that parenting is a solution, just as we shouldn't kid ourselves that technology isn't either. The answer is maybe stop thinkin…
Of course I'm on your side here, there must be a healthy balance, which modern child micromanagement, and zealous survellance in general, are quite an opposite of. Saying this as someone who survived my happy 80-90-s childhood, roaming freely wherever we wanted with my friends, doing kid things many modern parents would be terrified of, like climbing various industrial structures, crashing on our bikes and sleds and whatnot. And still being an exemplary homeboy in the eyes of my parents and neghbours. Sure, some of my friends didn't make it through perfectly unscathed, some broke a bone or two, and I still have that scar from the sled blade, but that's the way of life.
One can't turn the world into a perfectly safe utopia without turning it into complete dystopia in the process. Education and culture is what makes it safe without such side effects.
Uh children makes ppl loose all reason lets use that as argument. Then we can take their freedom of speech since we already can restrict information access and soon everyone will dance around our whim.
Meanwhile evil actors don't even care bc they prolly have their own networks and whatnot. This will just lead to the torture of innocents. But hey as if they'd cared. Not like they ever have or will admit any fault anyway.