[plsbenice34]

>I see a lot of comments here arguing age requirements are overreach and these decisions should be left to the parents. To those presenting such arguments, do you think that applies to other activities as well? What about smoking/drinking/firearms? Pornography? Driving?

Yes. The state has far, far too much involvement in everybody's lives.

[kelseyfrog]

This is a great stance to have if consequences have zero value.

Every time we shrug and say "let the parents decide," we gamble with the most vulnerable: the kids who don’t yet know how to refuse a cigarette, who don’t yet grasp the weight of a loaded weapon, who don’t yet understand that porn isn’t a harmless curiosity. We gamble with the soul of childhood—and when we lose, those children don’t get a second chance. They leave behind empty chairs at dinner tables, empty beds in houses that echo with what might have been. That’s the true cost of unfettered "parental freedom," and it’s a price that's easy to pay with someone else's life. But hey, Fuck those kids, right?

[plsbenice34]

I can't express strongly enough that arguing about how to raise children is an incredibly deep, contentious topic. Over and over i see that the state terrifies me deep into my soul, as does the power that a parent has over shaping its children. You're gambling either way and there will always be disturbing consequences. You do not know the optimal way to raise a child - nobody does. It is subjective. Parents NEED to take on massive responsibility and raise their own children rather than leaving it up to the state or letting the state dictate how children are raised. Do you trust Donald Trump to shape your child? Who knows who could be elected next wherever you live

[doright]

A part of me thinks the opinion people have on this topic is partly mediated by whether or not the state or their parents abused them growing up. It's just dumb luck, and it is hard to imagine being in someone else's position since the consequences can only really be understood from lived experience.

For me it isn't either/or but I have a bias towards fixing abusive parenting. But I don't think even the government will have much luck with that, when so much "not good enough" parenting can be perceived as normal and forgotten about. Every dysfunctional family is broken in their own unique way, and there will never be a catch-all solution. Heck, it's so personal an issue the only way most people will even know it's a problem is if people bring it up themselves. It's too personal and individualized for people to randomly start talking about and unite under as opposed to issues of the state/politics, when it's likely that there is no solution to be found except cutting off the family and moving on.

[kelseyfrog]

Help me understand how we went from "Social media is bad for kids" to "optimal way to raise a child."

Avoiding a harm is not equivalent to optimal way in my mind, but it seems like it is in yours? How does that work?

[dayvigo]

I've noticed the left, right, and center have all become more obsessed than ever these past few years with the idea the state and society aren't doing enough to forcibly protect people from themselves, that preventing potential self-inflicted harm due to a poor or risky decision is worth literally any cost; 1% aggregate harm reduction is now considered preferable to freedom of choice. No amount of risk is ever acceptable, and no one is allowed to perform their own risk calculus because they don't know better. And yes, as you said, abusive parenting is a major issue as well. Hard problems to solve.