• Speiser0@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Of course it only stops children that want to be stopped, aka it protects them from stuff they want to be protected from.

    See also my last sentence:

    It weights more than protecting children from the consequences of their own free decisions in this case, imo.

    Of course, you can disagree here. The fundamental question is, do we want to let the subject decide by itself, or do - as the lawmaker - the decision for all subjects.

    For drinking alcohol I’d prefer latter, because:

    1. Young humans are less resistant against the bad effects of alcohol than adult ones. (==> Makes sense to restrict only a part of the population.)
    2. It can be addicting. (==> Hard to make own decision.)
    3. There can be peer pressure to take drugs. (==> Hard to make own decision.)
    4. The damages would be expensive for the health care system. (==> Negative effects for all of us, not just the individual.)

    For gore and porn I don’t see such points.

    • vandsjov@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      If you dont think people can get issues from watching things, you should look up issues people have gotten from having a job of reviewing flagged content on social media sites.

      I’m a little confused at what you’re writing, as it seems like you think the children that should choose if they should access a porn (or other adult content) site. They will of cause continue to watch. Just like they would eat doughnuts as a meal all the time if they had the choice.