DeSantis signs Florida ban on kids using social media.

If Florida is so repressive why don't you move from Florida to California or New York where the governance is not so "nanny state". In a previous thread it was claimed that people were fleeing Florida. Move to California and buck the trend.

 

Or parental rights to raise their kids as they see fit.
Or nanny state gov't.

Which is it?

 

Didn't I just tell you NYC is already a nanny state, and Florida is following suit? What would be the point in moving from one nanny state to another? I will never live in NYC or CA.

Would be nice to have the freedom to raise your kids as opposed to have the government do it.

 

Then get out of Florida if it is so oppressive. Why do you tolerate such government interference?

 

Awwww.....such a clever idea.

 

Most parents have no idea of the destruction caused by social media. The government restricts alcohol consumption by minors. In the case of Florida the government is restricting social media consumption by minors. Same principle.

 

It's your thread topic. If you are dissatisfied with Florida leave for another state.

 

Most parents?
Are not aware of how social media works? How bad or good it can be?

Or just bad or lazy parents who don't monitor their kids activity?

 

If there are people who still don't know what social media is, then....well.......maybe they need a nanny, but why punish everyone for the ignorance of some?

I think there are more sensible ways to oppose authoritarianism. Some people always run, while others think of ways to oppose.

 

I didn't know that children on social media was an issue. But I have confidence in the DeSantis administration to do the right thing. When I grew up, there were no cell phones, no computers, and no internet. The availability of these things now, without restrictions, are like roads without rules. So maybe it is appropriate to establish some parameters, especially where children are concerned. After all, we don't allow children access to alcohol, pornography, or guns, as that is the will of concerned Parents.

 

Or what currently exists and that is a balance of both. We can argue about how balanced things need to be but to pretend like it’s a choice of anarchy or dictatorship? What country you in bro?

 

Why do you equate parental rights with anarchy? As for dictatorship, the more control over the people you give to the government, the closer to dictatorship you get.

 

They are not aware of the damage social media is doing to their kids.

 

I didn’t. The poster I responded to did. Maybe read the conversation before jumping into one. Pro-tip

 

So then children should have the right to drink and do drugs should their parents allow it? Is that what you are saying?

 

"DeSantis signs Florida ban on kids using social media."

the only way to enforce this is for adults to identify themselves with a driver's license or something before joining a group, just like with buying cigarettes.... ID, Please

say goodbye to an anonymous internet... do it for the children

 

should it be illegal for parents to let children have a glass of wine with dinner or a church give it to children, does big daddy government know best?

no one is saying a parent should be allowed to get children drunk, but there has to be common sense..... like refusing to sell an 80-year-old man alcohol or cigarettes without an ID

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_communion

"Infants typically receive a small amount of consecrated Blood of Christ (wine), which mingles with the Body (bread) of Christ; older children receive the consecrated Body of Christ (bread) as well."

 

I never said nor implied this.

It absolutely was not. The entire premise behind the ban was because of the negative impact.

I'm not changing the argument. You have no response so you are claiming something that clearly isn't true.

So? Stating this is completely irrelevant. Yet another instance of you not having a response.

So what? Stating this is completely irrelevant. Yet another instance of you not having a response.

This seems to be a pattern.

You are opposing something solely because it's coming from a republican. You have yet to say why you oppose it and are hiding behind this 'more government' schtick.

As soon as I pointed out how it's identical to other things that are illegal to children you've done nothing but run from actually defending your position.....gee I wonder why.

Your positions are hypocritical. Me pointing it out isn't attacking you, it's just stating the obvious.

You support FAR MORE government than I do. Just because I support a single law doesn't prove otherwise. This is a massive logical fallacy that you are using.

You are opposing this because it is coming from a republican and nothing else. That's putting politics above all else. You still haven't stated why you are against this but support alcohol and tobacco bans for children (as well as driving a car).....unless you'd like to state that you think those should be legal too?

No I don't. I never said I needed government for anything.

Yet again fabricating things I never said or implied.

Again with the same logical fallacy.

How about actually attempting to defend your position...which you've yet to do.

Yet again something I never said or implied.

This is why you can't win an argument. Argue on merit and not what you WISH I said.

Once again, you are opposing this because it came from the right. You can't even say why you oppose it.

Yes you do, you are hard left. Your post history is crystal clear and so is mine.

You are very left, support very big government (at least a lot more than I do)

And before you make up more nonsense, let me remind you not to use the logical fallacy of claiming that because I support this one single law, that in no way means I support big government, commie left, etc.

Dear god you can't let the logical fallacy go.

If you aren't opposed to this because it came from desantis, then you would've by now actually said what it is about this you oppose. And no, authoritarianism isn't an answer because then you'd oppose any law as this one is certainly not authoritarian in nature. It's actually quite natural to want something banned that has been shown to have an overwhelmingly negative affect on kids.

You oppose this because it came from desantis, we all know it and it's why you can't actually form ANY defense of your position.

You may go push your partisanship to someone else. You've had multiple chances to actually formulate an argument and you've not done anything other than pretend I said things I didn't or grossly jump to conclusions that are completely false. It's hard to display so many logical fallacies in one post, so congrats on that i guess.

 

Obviously a different country from you. For in English, I never mentioned anarchy or dictatorship.
Only that gov't need not be dictating to parents what their kids can do on their phones.

What country you in bro???

 

OK, then the gov't is the solution to ignorant parents.
Why take away control of the informed and involved parents?

 

Maybe you should read the conversation you respond to.

 

Only if one has reading comprehension issues.

 

Oh you didn’t mention it specifically but in English that’s the only conclusion that can be drawn from your statement.

Parental rights to raise kids as they see fit aka no laws whatsoever to protect kids aka anarchy

or nanny state aka total control going the other war aka dictatorship.


If you mean to parse your words better so they aren’t absolutes then you better get busy and start parsing. Cause words mean things. what country you in bro?


Glad you see things my way and reasonable laws concerning protection of kids is a good thing. Or is this where you go back and start spouting off about nanny state if laws exist to protect kids? Waffle waffle waffle!

 

read it, understood it, and found it extremely wanting.

Now go respond to my response to you like a good poster.

Pro-tip: Try not to bandy in absolutes so much and you might not have people think you mean your words absolutely! Lol!

 

exactly, this is the new "do it for the children", when really it means we want to know who everyone is on the net