Re: Banning Social Media For Under-16s

On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:45:18 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote

Lawrence D'Oliveiro  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote

Scott Dorsey wrote

>

The only solution is to actually educate kids about sex ...

>
Not even possible
>

Some right-wingers have religious objections to that though, don't 
they?

>

Not just right-wingers.  Plenty of folks left and center have social
objections to that.  (Most of the claimed religious objections on the
right turn out to be social objections when carefully inspected.)

>

We live in a society that is very messed-up about sex and that isn't
going to change until people see places that are less so.  The nice
thing about the internet is that it gives kids an opportunity to see
places that are less so.  The bad thing about the internet is that it
provides no context.

>

There has to be some balance between freedom and control.

>
Bullshit

It is not bullshit.  It's common sense.

>

In the USA  various venereal diseases, like clamidia andgonorrhea are 
out of  control, especially among blacks.

>
Bullshit

Look it up!  It is not bullshit.

>

The mechanics of sex must be  combined with social skills&  
responsibilities and should be taught  from a young age.

>
Not even possible.

Yes it is.  Flog them if they refuse to learn!

>

Various religions oppose this mainly inthe  endeavor to breed more 
adherents,

>
That's not why they do that

It's the main one! 

>

and the costs of caring for bastards  and gravid mothers.

>
In fact the stupid child benefits system actually encourages that

"Child benefits" do not knock them up?