[Brendinooo]

We don't apply this principle to something like peanut allergies. "If your kid touches a peanut, that's on you as a parent"? No, people recognized that peanuts are harmful enough to a certain segment of the population that it's worth making changes, even changes that might inconvenience others.

Besides, I'm not sure why you think that parents are able to be 100% in control of things that their children see/eat/etc. Should we legalize nudity on billboards, and would your suggestion then be to "simply drive on different roads"?

[YellOh]

What does society do to solve the peanut problem? Outside of schools, it seems totally on the parent to stop the kid from eating peanuts. The parent does the grocery shopping, asks the right questions when taking the kid to a restaurant, and lets friends/other caregivers know not to give peanuts to the child.

People do "make changes" for specific allergies & food restrictions by making the information available & creating some allergen-free zones (just like adult content is currently kept out of schools and family-friendly locations, and there are adult-content warnings most times) but peanut access is absolutely currently up to the parent, in general.

I'm not even sure what the billboard thing is getting at. We shouldn't have nudity on billboards (except female breasts in nonsexual contexts), just like we shouldn't keep peanuts where we know anyone allergic has to be. Counter-hypothetical: it would be incredibly stupid to lock up peanut butter because kids might take a $5 bill to the store and buy the clearly-labelled jar.

[yamtaddle]

> What does society do to solve the peanut problem?

We mandate labeling. We could not do that and just say "parents, you must run a peanut-detection lab or have extremely restricted diets of only food you make yourself, to keep your kids safe", but we don't.

[YellOh]

I have no issue with labelling requirements for large commercial operations. To be honest I thought we already had that for adult content, given the specific TV/radio limits and the "confirm you're 18" popups so popular on the web.

I realize I'm beating a dead analogy here, but I don't think we should impose those labelling restrictions on independent hobbyist websites, just like we don't require licensing or ingredient labelling for small bake sales.

But even if we did, "label obviously-adult content" would be way more reasonable than "collect personal information to verify the real-life identity of site visitors, and log this sensitive data so it can be accessed (/hacked) later"

[pjlegato]

Writing "produced on equipment that also processes peanuts" on a food label is hardly inconveniencing others.

It's still very much on the parents to prevent harm to their peanut-allergic children.

As an aside, the sharp rise in nut allergies is itself an unintended consequence of another well-meaning attempt at social engineering: about 30 years ago, manufacturers began printing "CHOKING HAZARD: DO NOT FEED NUTS TO CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD" on nut labels. Many parents complied, and that lack of any early exposure to nut proteins resulted in a massive increase in life-threatening nut allergies among children.

[Brendinooo]

Do you have kids in school? Our kids aren’t allowed to pack peanuts in their lunches because parents can’t put an allergic kid in a cafeteria otherwise.

[evandale]

The consequence of exposing a kid with a peanut allergy to a peanut can be death. Watching hardcore porn won't kill a kid.

[m000]

Also, when you know something contains peanuts, you just stick a label "CONTAINS PEANUTS" on the packaging. You don't get the grocery store to ask everyone for a peanut allergy certificate before selling them a jar of PB, and also keep a log of who bought PB from them.

And we already have something similar for porn sites, in the form of the "Are you over 18?" landing page banners.

[Brendinooo]

That’s not the only thing people do to help allergic kids. I mentioned this in an adjacent thread.

[Brendinooo]

It will harm a kid, and asking a website to figure out how to verify an age is far less burdensome than taking PB&Js out of kid lunches.

[evandale]

I could see ongoing watching harming a kid, but if they stumble upon porn one time by accident and see it? I don't see how that could harm them.

A kid with a peanut allergy who came into contact with peanuts, even accidentally one time, could be fatal.

[cmh89]

>It will harm a kid

*Citation needed

[Brendinooo]

This sounds like a smart response until you think about the possibility of an academic study researching exposure of minors to hardcore porn. Think that would pass ethical muster?

The fundamental questions are

1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?

2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?

If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.

[cmh89]

>This sounds like a smart response until you think about the possibility of an academic study researching exposure of minors to hardcore porn. Think that would pass ethical muster?

Well, yeah, it would...

>1. Does porn usage line up with other patterns of addiction?

I'm not sure what this question is asking. Porn usage may or may not 'line up' with patterns of addiction. That doesn't mean that porn always or even the majority of the time is. Can you rephrase this question into something more coherent?

>2. Are similarly addicting things withheld from children because their brains are less equipped to handle it?

LOL absolutely not. Children, especially American children, are given huge amounts of sugar, which is actually physically addictive. Many are given huge amounts of caffeine which is again, physically addictive.

Millions of children around the country have tons of access to video games and TV, which can be addictive.

>If yes to both, then it’s a no-brainer.

Well, you're first question doesn't make any sense, and your second question is a resounding no.

The best way to keep your child from becoming addicted to anything is to act like a parent.

[scarface74]

Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed.

[Brendinooo]

There's plenty of room between "unrestricted" and "stopped".

You're not arguing that "laws don't actually do anything", right?

[yamtaddle]

"These are very effective but not perfectly effective" is the lamest possible "gotcha!" in these kinds of discussions.

[scarface74]

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html

> In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.1 Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. However, large percentages of middle and high school students reported past-year marijuana vaping—8% of eighth graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders.

[yamtaddle]

I remember those surveys. I did so much meth.

[scarface74]

You really don’t think a lot of teenagers are smoking weed?

[yamtaddle]

> Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed.

> Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019.

I've got a guess about why the number might be rising, and it rhymes with "egalization", in which case, yes, making drugs illegal reduced use of drugs. I guarantee fewer people in general, including fewer kids, smoked when it was illegal, and less was consumed overall. I'd further bet there's a lot less pot consumption by kids now, than there would be if dispensaries didn't verify age.

But I also suspect it's just kinda hard to get clean data about teen drug use. I'd also guess the real figures are extremely uneven (that "8% of eighth graders", if accurate, probably means 20% some places and 2% in others) and high use correlates to places where it's easy to get, which supports the notion that carding or outlawing should reduce use (since they make it harder to get).

(Nb. I'm pro-legalization, I just think carding and outlawing almost certainly strongly curb use, though of course they don't stop it completely, and I think "this wasn't perfectly effective, so it's necessarily useless" isn't a strong point in most situations)

[George83728]

Laws against murder haven't stopped murder, so I guess those laws are useless.

Gun control laws? Japan's ex-PM got blown away by a wacko with a homemade shotgun, so I guess gun control laws just don't work. Nevermind the rate of gun violence in Japan.. it's all or nothing.

[monetus]

This doesn't directly add to or take from your point, because obviously laws have a purpose -

that assassin was motivated by an extreme religious affiliation to the lawmakers. There is irony here.

[George83728]

I'm not seeing the irony, unless you believe that opposition to pornography being available to kids must necessarily have a religious motive. I oppose it, and I am an atheist.

[monetus]

It doesn't have to for anyone, but does in this instance as the lawmakers in question are motivated by their affiliation with a religion.