Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

The main example that comes to mind is anything having to do with the environment. “The kids” will face the brunt of our actions (or inactions) on that front so a “for the kids” argument is completely valid. Dismissing a proposal simply because of a “for the kids” element is incredibly reductive and will genuinely end up harming kids.

View on HN

“For the kids” arguments are distinct from arguments worrying about future generations in that they are almost entirely focused (ostensibly) on preventing harm to children while they are children rather than “all our descendants including the adults”.

Then let's ban child safety locks, child labor laws, and any law that distinguishes child abuse from other forms of abuse. Let's also allow minors to buy tobacco and alcohol while we're at it if we're claiming that any law that exists to protect children as children is inherently misguided.

I think if you spoke to the people actually making the claim they’d define it a little better to include only cases where adults are being asked to give up rights, freedoms, or privileges. But you can ask them.

I didn’t take a position on the argument. I pointed out a distinction.

Child safety locks make adults give up freedom because the lock has to be unlocked, which is like asking for ID.

At least that's the anti-AB1043 logic. AB1043 says every phone must have a child safety lock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com