This is the same thing the government has been doing for decades. "Kids are at risk! Better have more draconian surveillance laws, digital ID, AI cameras, etc." At this point, the virtuous thing to do is to say "No more laws to protect kids. We don't care about kids anymore." Because, of course, we do care about children, but there are too many laws created in their name, as so we must roll many or all of them back to restore freedom to the people.
Much like saying "Yes, I am racist," is becoming acceptable once again, we also need to be able to say "Who the fuck cares about kids if it means more laws?"
Nature isn't circular; but linear...it's ebb and flow what governments are exploiting by pushing the limit of flow as far as it goes, while knowing the ebb is going to level whatever doesn't stick.
Those mentally governed cannot roll anything back, since they're stuck within circular thinking (logic).
One of these circular confinements is moralism...in this case...pedophilia good vs pedophilia bad. No matter which side one holds onto; the conflict continues for as long as either side is chosen. Same trick with democrat vs republican.
A jew doesn't care about which side a gentiles chooses...only that both sides are turned against one another within circular revolution.
There was never anything virtuous about being "tolerant"; it was always just cowardice cloaked in moral superiority. When I say "Yes, I am racist", that's not rhetorical; it's an acknowledgement of reality.
We should care about kids, however. If doesn't even matter whether you have your own or not; everyone needs kids to be raised well enough that they can take the reigns of civilization from us when we're too old. Anyone who doesn't understsnd this, or who doesn't care about the future of our species, is a self-centered nihilist who doesn't deserve any credibility.
The correct response is, and always is: The safety of the children is the responsibility of the parent.
The only laws that should even be considered in "protecting" children are those which increase the ability of their parents to protect them (explicit authority relating to schooling/healthcare, strong gun ownership rights, Castle doctrine applying to children, etc).
Governments do not protect children, governments cover up actual child abuse.
It's the civilians in it which are domesticated by the reign of foreigners. A civilian cannot tame civilization with any reigns...cause that would imply yanking ones own leash.
The correct response is, and always is: The safety of the children is the responsibility of the parent.
You have to be careful of these arguments. Let's go hard libertarian for a second. Who is the steward of your child? The parents or the State? The parents should be the ones who guide the baseline moral compass for that child until they reach adolescence and eventually adulthood. But it is shared with the State. The State says you can't beat your child, cut up your child, sell your child to a brothel or make them work in a labor factory. Those are considered good things now, and they weren't always.
Now some states (lower case) is also trying to say you can't give your child certain hormone drugs. This seems like a good thing, except that the state can also use the same argument to say "You must fully vax your kid" (I'm 100% against all childhood vaccinations at this point. I don't think they're remotely work the risks anymore).
This is the same thing the government has been doing for decades. "Kids are at risk! Better have more draconian surveillance laws, digital ID, AI cameras, etc." At this point, the virtuous thing to do is to say "No more laws to protect kids. We don't care about kids anymore." Because, of course, we do care about children, but there are too many laws created in their name, as so we must roll many or all of them back to restore freedom to the people.
Much like saying "Yes, I am racist," is becoming acceptable once again, we also need to be able to say "Who the fuck cares about kids if it means more laws?"
Nature isn't circular; but linear...it's ebb and flow what governments are exploiting by pushing the limit of flow as far as it goes, while knowing the ebb is going to level whatever doesn't stick.
Those mentally governed cannot roll anything back, since they're stuck within circular thinking (logic).
One of these circular confinements is moralism...in this case...pedophilia good vs pedophilia bad. No matter which side one holds onto; the conflict continues for as long as either side is chosen. Same trick with democrat vs republican.
A jew doesn't care about which side a gentiles chooses...only that both sides are turned against one another within circular revolution.
No, this is a false equivalence.
There was never anything virtuous about being "tolerant"; it was always just cowardice cloaked in moral superiority. When I say "Yes, I am racist", that's not rhetorical; it's an acknowledgement of reality.
We should care about kids, however. If doesn't even matter whether you have your own or not; everyone needs kids to be raised well enough that they can take the reigns of civilization from us when we're too old. Anyone who doesn't understsnd this, or who doesn't care about the future of our species, is a self-centered nihilist who doesn't deserve any credibility.
The correct response is, and always is: The safety of the children is the responsibility of the parent.
The only laws that should even be considered in "protecting" children are those which increase the ability of their parents to protect them (explicit authority relating to schooling/healthcare, strong gun ownership rights, Castle doctrine applying to children, etc).
Governments do not protect children, governments cover up actual child abuse.
It's the civilians in it which are domesticated by the reign of foreigners. A civilian cannot tame civilization with any reigns...cause that would imply yanking ones own leash.
You have to be careful of these arguments. Let's go hard libertarian for a second. Who is the steward of your child? The parents or the State? The parents should be the ones who guide the baseline moral compass for that child until they reach adolescence and eventually adulthood. But it is shared with the State. The State says you can't beat your child, cut up your child, sell your child to a brothel or make them work in a labor factory. Those are considered good things now, and they weren't always.
Now some states (lower case) is also trying to say you can't give your child certain hormone drugs. This seems like a good thing, except that the state can also use the same argument to say "You must fully vax your kid" (I'm 100% against all childhood vaccinations at this point. I don't think they're remotely work the risks anymore).
There is always this tradeoff in most societies.