Florida House passes a bill to ban social media accounts for children under 16

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Unknownparadox

TextThe lawmakers in your Florida government do not have the necessary medical/psychological credentials to make these types of life-changing decisions that parents and the child's counsellors should be making.

a reply to: quintessentone
I don't live in Florida. And if you want to start talking about who is qualified to make decisions for a child wanting to pretent to be the opposite gender. It sure isn't the California government. As it's idea is, a child knows best, so when they come to school, with no psychiatrist, or any medical person backing their decision to be something else. California says, we want to make sure we don't tell the parents.

As far as medical people claiming this is what's best for the child. You might keep in mind, the medical community and the pharmaceutical community, have both conspired to piss on the health and well being of patients, in the name of the almighty dollar. So I have a hard time believing them about this being best for kids. Social media only compounds the problem.

I only mentioned parents and others can't be bothered educating themselves in child developmental psychology to learn what behaviours will come and go if parents are facing a child that is questioning. That to me is negligent parenting. Leave it to those that are educated in these matters to lead the way.

Wow. You just made the argument for not letting parents dictate what their kids are up to. Weren’t you just stating the opposite? You can’t have it both ways.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's stupid "common sense" laws that they keep passing.

Wear seatbelts.

Okay, if you don't you'll die, but do we NEED government to tell us that?

Wear helmets when riding a motorcycle.

Duh.

But they make laws.

Don't let your children access adult issues on the internet. . .

And we really need government to tell us that?

WTF??????

Yes. Yes we do need government to tell us that. Just like we need people to pay for their gas before they put the nozzle in the tank. Just like we need metal detectors in our schools. Just like we need labels on peanut jars. Stupid is a protected class.

"Stupid" is the lawmaker class.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

The results are already in.
Social media damages kids.

Some social media damages some kids, not all kids. Throw the baby out with the bathwater Florida government at it again. Their agenda is clear to me.

Some kids can drive fine too.
Did you hear about that eight year old who took his parents car and ended up 100 miles away?
I suppose we should let all eight year olds drive now?
This is the argument you’re trying to make.

Social media damages kids.
Prove me wrong. Good luck.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Klassified

How are they going to enforce this?

And I feel like this is a waste of time and money. Someone will contest it. And will probably lose out if they take this to court as unconstitutional.

We keep telling you that Republicans are the bad guys. You don't listen.

I'm just reading through definitions of different types of governments and pertaining to how Florida government is handling this specific situation, so I'd have to go with Fascism.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Unknownparadox

TextThe lawmakers in your Florida government do not have the necessary medical/psychological credentials to make these types of life-changing decisions that parents and the child's counsellors should be making.

a reply to: quintessentone
I don't live in Florida. And if you want to start talking about who is qualified to make decisions for a child wanting to pretent to be the opposite gender. It sure isn't the California government. As it's idea is, a child knows best, so when they come to school, with no psychiatrist, or any medical person backing their decision to be something else. California says, we want to make sure we don't tell the parents.

As far as medical people claiming this is what's best for the child. You might keep in mind, the medical community and the pharmaceutical community, have both conspired to piss on the health and well being of patients, in the name of the almighty dollar. So I have a hard time believing them about this being best for kids. Social media only compounds the problem.

I only mentioned parents and others can't be bothered educating themselves in child developmental psychology to learn what behaviours will come and go if parents are facing a child that is questioning. That to me is negligent parenting. Leave it to those that are educated in these matters to lead the way.

Wow. You just made the argument for not letting parents dictate what their kids are up to. Weren’t you just stating the opposite? You can’t have it both ways.

You are missing the context and that being specifically pertaining to children that are questioning and how that mostly resolves itself. It's not this way or that way, it's complex.

That to me is negligent parenting. Leave it to those that are educated in these matters to lead the way.

a reply to: quintessentone

You mean like these educated people, leading the way in treating MS?

The lawsuit accused the company , opens new tab of directing millions of dollars in kickbacks in "sham" consulting deals and speaker programs, lavish dinners and entertainment to prescribe its MS drugs Avonex, Tysabri and Tecfidera from 2009 to 2014. MS medications are expensive and only a small group of products are approved to treat it, Bawduniak said. Paying kickbacks allowed Biogen to compete in a market where just a few thousand doctors are prescribers. The scheme helped the company boost sales of the drugs even as new competing products were introduced and enable Tecfidera to become a blockbuster drug upon its introduction in 2013, Bawduniak alleged.

Biogen drug racket

You know how many of those doctors and pharmaceutical company people went to jail? ZERO. And let's not forget opioids. But those are just the tip of a much larger iceberg.
These people are using social media to push their scams. Which children are more susceptible to.
So how about we don't leave it to those people?

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

The results are already in.
Social media damages kids.

Some social media damages some kids, not all kids. Throw the baby out with the bathwater Florida government at it again. Their agenda is clear to me.

Some kids can drive fine too.
Did you hear about that eight year old who took his parents car and ended up 100 miles away?
I suppose we should let all eight year olds drive now?
This is the argument you’re trying to make.

Social media damages kids.
Prove me wrong. Good luck.

Again, some social media damages some kids but with advanced new surveillance tech for parental supervision it's easily remedied unless the parents are negligent and the child needs outside help from children's aid - not lawmakers - this is not a universal problem and the government should not take the easy, lazy and cheap way out of addressing and fixing the problem at the source(s). They are continuing their anti-LGBTQ agenda IMO.

a reply to: quintessentone

False, rules and laws and made to be followed. Otherwise you are a criminal.........


All social media sites already have an age restriction on them, if you are bypassing that by putting in false information you are violating T&C and can be banned for life. Most of these sites the min age is 13, I would not be surprised if some of them start raising that to 15-16.


What leg do parents have to stand on in this situation? Oh no my kid can't get corrupt by SM until they have a little more real world experience to understand truth from falsehood.

a reply to: Unknownparadox

For every negative source you can cherry pick, I can do the same. Do you really want to go there? How about we discuss the thread topic, won't that be a first?

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

False, rules and laws and made to be followed. Otherwise you are a criminal.........


All social media sites already have an age restriction on them, if you are bypassing that by putting in false information you are violating T&C and can be banned for life. Most of these sites the min age is 13, I would not be surprised if some of them start raising that to 15-16.


What leg do parents have to stand on in this situation? Oh no my kid can't get corrupt by SM until they have a little more real world experience to understand truth from falsehood.

Will they be criminalizing young children that ignore this law?

a reply to: quintessentone

That's up for the court systems to decide, not me and not you

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

The results are already in.
Social media damages kids.

Some social media damages some kids, not all kids. Throw the baby out with the bathwater Florida government at it again. Their agenda is clear to me.

Some kids can drive fine too.
Did you hear about that eight year old who took his parents car and ended up 100 miles away?
I suppose we should let all eight year olds drive now?
This is the argument you’re trying to make.

Social media damages kids.
Prove me wrong. Good luck.

Again, some social media damages some kids but with advanced new surveillance tech for parental supervision it's easily remedied unless the parents are negligent and the child needs outside help from children's aid - not lawmakers - this is not a universal problem and the government should not take the easy, lazy and cheap way out of addressing and fixing the problem at the source(s). They are continuing their anti-LGBTQ agenda IMO.

Social medias effect on kids is a proven universal problem, around the world. Prove me wrong.

This bill has nothing to do with whatever lgbtq issues you have with Florida doing the right thing. If you want to talk about your issues with that then make a new thread.

I enjoy small government conservatism like this, politicians should 100% be dictating morality.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: quintessentone

That's up for the court systems to decide, not me and not you

But it is up to 'the people' to decide on which laws they deem unconstitutional and break down those laws.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I enjoy small government conservatism like this, politicians should 100% be dictating morality.

It's the new way, but only in Florida. Coming your way soon, big brother.

originally posted by: quintessentone
It's the new way, but only in Florida. Coming your way soon, big brother.

I'm hoping politicians in Florida pass more laws that usurp parental authority, parents are mostly stupid and politicians are mostly not.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Vermilion

Maybe parents should push for these companies to stop those malicious practices against kids so that their precious children can have access.

Who has taxpayer's money and the power to effect such important needed changes? That's right, the government. What does government do instead? Not take on the good fight but the easy way by taking away the rights of it's citizens.

Social media sites purposely damaging kids is not a right.
Are you pushing back on kids not being able to drive until they’re 16 as well?
How about kids using tobacco, or alcohol, or even legal Mary Jane?
There has to be a line somewhere when it comes to proven damaging things kids are exposed to.
Surely you can agree with that?

How children's parents deem what is damaging or not to their children is their right? Is it not?

No.
If a parent thinks it’s cool to let their 12 year old drink whiskey with them daily we have as giant problem.
Ohio just passed a bill which says parents can’t let their kids chop off their genitals even if they want them to. Excellent legislation.👍
That’s just an example of a law that does indeed protect children over their ‘parents rights’.
Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up, believe it or not.

We are discussing only one parental right, that being to have the right to choose whether or not their child can responsibly visit social media sites approved by the parents, and hopefully supervised by same. Nothing else.

Parents don’t have the right to screw their kids up.
You can feel free to apply that to any crap that damages kids.

What does or does not damage kids is best left to the people who actually know the kid, that would not be government lawmakers.

The results are already in.
Social media damages kids.

Some social media damages some kids, not all kids. Throw the baby out with the bathwater Florida government at it again. Their agenda is clear to me.

Some kids can drive fine too.
Did you hear about that eight year old who took his parents car and ended up 100 miles away?
I suppose we should let all eight year olds drive now?
This is the argument you’re trying to make.

Social media damages kids.
Prove me wrong. Good luck.

Again, some social media damages some kids but with advanced new surveillance tech for parental supervision it's easily remedied unless the parents are negligent and the child needs outside help from children's aid - not lawmakers - this is not a universal problem and the government should not take the easy, lazy and cheap way out of addressing and fixing the problem at the source(s). They are continuing their anti-LGBTQ agenda IMO.

Social medias effect on kids is a proven universal problem, around the world. Prove me wrong.

This bill has nothing to do with whatever lgbtq issues you have with Florida doing the right thing. If you want to talk about your issues with that then make a new thread.

Well we disagree on the continuing anti-LGBTQ agenda path Florida politicians have and continue to take, so I'll leave it at that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: quintessentone
It's the new way, but only in Florida. Coming your way soon, big brother.

I'm hoping politicians in Florida pass more laws that usurp parental authority, parents are mostly stupid and politicians are mostly not.

You have excellent insight into the sad state of society and government on their white horses rescuing us all.

a reply to: quintessentone

Wrong again, "the people" do not rule something unconstitutional. They can say it is, but ultimately it is up to the high courts to rule something as unconstitutional.

But since you think you rule on this kind of stuff, what is unconstitutional about it?