I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.
I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.
I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.
When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?
Apologies, I didn’t mean to imply everything you read into that.
I did explore chemistry as a kid, with a chemistry set that could make energetic reactions. I did abuse that knowledge with household chemicals to create noise and violence. I was occasionally stupid with it, despite a grandfather who lost fingers. While there was some risk, it also furthered my love of science and engineering - it was a fun way of learning how stuff works.p and no one got hurt
I was trying to make the point that basic explosives knowledge exists and can’t un-exist. Ingredients for explosives are all around us. Trying to censor that is more likely to harm kids love of science, than it is to facilitate harm.
I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.
I expected people would bring up personal anecdotes to justify things.
I’m sorry about your experience. I’m glad you didn’t kill anyone. When we talk about policy, we’re talking about something that can be scaled. That’s why when we pass legislation it’s not helpful to look at single individual examples but at the broader picture.
I have nothing against kids exploring moral quandaries. We are talking about who takes the responsibility of delivering the content.
When my wife was a teacher, a 12 year old commitei suicide at home, which is insanely rare. Now, this kid was completely neglected at home. Should we allow kids to check out books that encourage suicide? Should the school district take on that liability? I know this is also an anecdotal example, but it’s interesting to explore the other perspective no?
Apologies, I didn’t mean to imply everything you read into that.
I did explore chemistry as a kid, with a chemistry set that could make energetic reactions. I did abuse that knowledge with household chemicals to create noise and violence. I was occasionally stupid with it, despite a grandfather who lost fingers. While there was some risk, it also furthered my love of science and engineering - it was a fun way of learning how stuff works.p and no one got hurt
I was trying to make the point that basic explosives knowledge exists and can’t un-exist. Ingredients for explosives are all around us. Trying to censor that is more likely to harm kids love of science, than it is to facilitate harm.
I totally agree. Thanks for contributing your perspective. I really appreciate it. I think the only factor perhaps to consider is liability. The internet is completely decentralized so the onus is more spread out maybe? I’m gonna think on this a little but I do concede that you make a good point in that the info is already out there. Twenty years ago our conversation might have sounded totally different.
Thanks!