[notepad0x90]

so you're saying kids with bad parents deserve to suffer?

Ok, parents should do better, whatever. By your logic, a strip club has no obligation to keep children out because that's the parents' job?

> I don't know what you're adding to conversations about this other than "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it."

I'm adding the discussion of an actual solution instead of burying of heads in sands.

[RiverCrochet]

> so you're saying kids with bad parents deserve to suffer?

I don't see how. Help me understand. Explain how kids with bad parents are suffering because parents might get fined or other legal action if they don't prevent their children from doing things they shouldn't with property the parents give them.

> By your logic, a strip club has no obligation to keep children out because that's the parents' job

It really is the parent's job. I don't have a problem with local regulations saying certain businesses can't attract minors, but unless people in the business are going up to children and saying "hey why don't you come here" or there is some other type of enticement, the far more important question is why you're letting your children go to or near a strip club.

> I'm adding the discussion of an actual solution

Hard disagree. All your preceding posts in this thread could be validly summarized "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it" and each post is simply increasing the amount of "think of the children" histronics. Looking at your other posts, I see heuristics of agenda pushing, such as posts consisteing of walls of text and repetition of key points. I won't engage this thread anymore as I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. Peace.

[notepad0x90]

"think of the children" has been effective because there is merit in it, you can't just dismiss things because someone says "think of the children"!! are you really saying that there is no harm coming to minors? are you really saying that your politics supersedes all else, even this? how are you different then from those who exclude pedos in office/clergy/positions of power? just because this is your ideology doesn't change who is being harmed.

It's unfortunate you abandoned this discussion, but I understand. I'll defend my position nevertheless.

> It really is the parent's job.

Parents have a responsibility, but children are not property or machines that someone is responsible for that way. They are part of society, and society as a whole is responsible for protecting them. That includes protecting them from their own parents, as well as anyone else. There are entire suites of laws, courts and services established around this very principle. It doesn't even matter whose job it is, what matters is harm being reduced.

Your argument seems to be "a well, too bad, shouldn't be my problem, why should i be inconvenienced because someone's weird offspring is harmed"...sorry , I think you need to find another society without minors in it.

Honestly though, shame on you and everyone else on this thread! may the entire internet burn down before a single child's harm is justified for its continuance.

May this entire civilization burn if it continues to defend pedos and harm to the most innocent and defenseless. But I'm hopeful that reasonable voices win, and if they don't, I'd rather be inconvenienced and have this nice little status quo that's been around for only a few decades disrupted.