6 ms·

Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban: 1) "Since whe

Here's a couple of arguments I had to deal with whilst expressing my support for electronics ban at schools including a blanket social media ban: 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best." 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn." 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes." All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought.

ForgetItJake 11mo ago
> All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought. I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?
- mjbale116 11mo ago
  > I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought? Indeed you don't; let me help you out then: Arguments must be made in good faith; and when you hear anyone saying anything I mentioned above it is immediately obvious that they are not arguing in good faith. If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed. If anyone considers the above arguments valid and worthy of discussion, they need to exempt themselves from this discourse.
  - matthewmacleod 11mo ago
    Indeed you don't It seems that they do indeed see what you’re saying…
    - HollowVoice 11mo ago
      [flagged]
  - ForgetItJake 11mo ago
    You can't just declare any opposition to your point of view as being in bad faith. (which is ironically in bad faith) > If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed. I hope you're trolling, because if not...
    - HollowVoice 11mo ago
      [flagged]
    - eesmith 11mo ago
      Those statements as described earlier were made in bad faith: > 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best." A public school intervenes between the parent and their children to tell the student what is good work and what is not. Parents do not always know best. (Yes, there are policies which let the parent appeal, but the parent does not have final authority.) Child protective services can take children away from parents who are egregiously poor parents. I don't see this as a good faith argument. > 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn." If we believe in educating citizens then we set rules to help educate citizens. There is a long history of prohibiting certain electronics at school. At https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38/mode/2up?q=%22transistor+radio+in+school%22 https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38... we can read that over 50 years ago some schools prohibited transistor radios. If the claim is in good faith then it's also saying that laws and rules forbidding smoking in school must be repealed. I certainly want to keep them in place, so I don't see this as a good faith argument. > 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes." Which is an argument that if the child wants to play video games all day and is getting Ds or worse in every class, than teachers should like the child continue to make that mistakes. I don't see this as a good faith argument.
  - Jensson 11mo ago
    Do you really think that people can't come up with such arguments on their own? People aren't very unique, lots of people independently come up with very similar stupid arguments.
    - gverrilla 11mo ago
      There's mass production and consumption of arguments and ideas.
- immibis 11mo ago
  You have to look beneath what people say, and consider what they think. The quoted arguments are quite clearly nonsense and must be rationalisations.
harvey9 11mo ago
Forbidding things doesn't work. Not for kids and not for adults. Hence speakeasys and the end of prohibition, or the war on drugs (which was won by drugs).
- f33d5173 11mo ago
  Forbidding things works. People drank less during prohibition, and they do less drugs than they would were they legalized. Hence there is no serious proposal to legalize most hard drugs
- deaux 11mo ago
  In pretty much all countries that instituted heavy restrictions on smoking, e.g. banning smoking from restaurants, you can see an accelerated drop in number of smokers the years after that ban regardless of changes in education. This is particularly easy to verify because it has been done in many countries but all at fairly different points in time. Some did it decades ago, some have done it recently, there are still countries where it's allowed. Forbidding things works very well most of the time. There are exceptions, but as a rule, it works.
- pjc50 11mo ago
  Eh, nuance: forbidding things entirely, which people want to do, and don't really harm others, doesn't work. Having separate spaces works a lot better. Which is why we have alcohol venue licensing. Forbidding kids from phones entirely, at the same time as adults are on them constantly, isn't going to work. But having a phone-free space like a smoke-free space is more viable.
- eesmith 11mo ago
  Where can I buy some radium water? An x-ray device to see if the shoes fit correctly? Leaded paint for my asbestos shingling? Can I sell my vote for the next presidential election? (It used to be common!) Hotel owners are forbidden from discriminating based on race. You want to allow it? Even if not perfect, it still works. As someone without security clearance, I'm forbidden from a lot of places with secret information. Even if there is still an underground market for elephant ivory in the US, forbidding its trade greatly reduced the demand. Seems like on average forbidding things has been pretty effective.
JuniperMesos 11mo ago
You should have to deal with these arguments, as should anyone else who is in a similar position to you advocating for an institution to ban something for other people. I will not say that some kind of electronic use ban at schools is necessarily bad, but someone proposing such a ban should absolutely have answers at hand to these reasonable counter-arguments.

ForgetItJake 11mo ago

> All of which are anti phone-ban/anti-regulation/pro-liberal/freemarketeering masquerading as a product of independent thought. I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought?

mjbale116 11mo ago
> I don't see what you're saying. Are you saying people must think the same things as you do for it to be independent thought? Indeed you don't; let me help you out then: Arguments must be made in good faith; and when you hear anyone saying anything I mentioned above it is immediately obvious that they are not arguing in good faith. If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed. If anyone considers the above arguments valid and worthy of discussion, they need to exempt themselves from this discourse.
- matthewmacleod 11mo ago
  Indeed you don't It seems that they do indeed see what you’re saying…
  - HollowVoice 11mo ago
    [flagged]
- ForgetItJake 11mo ago
  You can't just declare any opposition to your point of view as being in bad faith. (which is ironically in bad faith) > If they think they are, then their decision making centre is compromised by cnbc and fox news and their opinion must be dismissed. I hope you're trolling, because if not...
  - HollowVoice 11mo ago
    [flagged]
  - eesmith 11mo ago
    Those statements as described earlier were made in bad faith: > 1) "Since when do we consider it OK for the government to intervene between the parents and their children and telling them whats good and whats not? They know best." A public school intervenes between the parent and their children to tell the student what is good work and what is not. Parents do not always know best. (Yes, there are policies which let the parent appeal, but the parent does not have final authority.) Child protective services can take children away from parents who are egregiously poor parents. I don't see this as a good faith argument. > 2) "Whoever does not want to use electronics at school grounds are free to do so who are we to constrain them? Also, forbidding things never works let them learn." If we believe in educating citizens then we set rules to help educate citizens. There is a long history of prohibiting certain electronics at school. At https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38/mode/2up?q=%22transistor+radio+in+school%22 https://archive.org/details/makingvaluejudgm0000elde/page/38... we can read that over 50 years ago some schools prohibited transistor radios. If the claim is in good faith then it's also saying that laws and rules forbidding smoking in school must be repealed. I certainly want to keep them in place, so I don't see this as a good faith argument. > 3) "I think you are underestimating children; if they see that what they are doing with electronics affects them in any way, they will stop using them. Lets give them some credit and let them make their mistakes." Which is an argument that if the child wants to play video games all day and is getting Ds or worse in every class, than teachers should like the child continue to make that mistakes. I don't see this as a good faith argument.
- Jensson 11mo ago
  Do you really think that people can't come up with such arguments on their own? People aren't very unique, lots of people independently come up with very similar stupid arguments.
  - gverrilla 11mo ago
    There's mass production and consumption of arguments and ideas.
immibis 11mo ago
You have to look beneath what people say, and consider what they think. The quoted arguments are quite clearly nonsense and must be rationalisations.

harvey9 11mo ago

Forbidding things doesn't work. Not for kids and not for adults. Hence speakeasys and the end of prohibition, or the war on drugs (which was won by drugs).

f33d5173 11mo ago
Forbidding things works. People drank less during prohibition, and they do less drugs than they would were they legalized. Hence there is no serious proposal to legalize most hard drugs
deaux 11mo ago
In pretty much all countries that instituted heavy restrictions on smoking, e.g. banning smoking from restaurants, you can see an accelerated drop in number of smokers the years after that ban regardless of changes in education. This is particularly easy to verify because it has been done in many countries but all at fairly different points in time. Some did it decades ago, some have done it recently, there are still countries where it's allowed. Forbidding things works very well most of the time. There are exceptions, but as a rule, it works.
pjc50 11mo ago
Eh, nuance: forbidding things entirely, which people want to do, and don't really harm others, doesn't work. Having separate spaces works a lot better. Which is why we have alcohol venue licensing. Forbidding kids from phones entirely, at the same time as adults are on them constantly, isn't going to work. But having a phone-free space like a smoke-free space is more viable.
eesmith 11mo ago
Where can I buy some radium water? An x-ray device to see if the shoes fit correctly? Leaded paint for my asbestos shingling? Can I sell my vote for the next presidential election? (It used to be common!) Hotel owners are forbidden from discriminating based on race. You want to allow it? Even if not perfect, it still works. As someone without security clearance, I'm forbidden from a lot of places with secret information. Even if there is still an underground market for elephant ivory in the US, forbidding its trade greatly reduced the demand. Seems like on average forbidding things has been pretty effective.

JuniperMesos 11mo ago

You should have to deal with these arguments, as should anyone else who is in a similar position to you advocating for an institution to ban something for other people. I will not say that some kind of electronic use ban at schools is necessarily bad, but someone proposing such a ban should absolutely have answers at hand to these reasonable counter-arguments.