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?"
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.
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?"
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.