Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "Lunduke reads YouTube Comments" video.

  1. I completely disagree with your stance on the EFF. I don't think they're at all being weirdos or wanting children to look at adult content. The issue is one of free speech and I'm an absolutist on that particular subject. You made an awful lot of comparisons of apples and oranges, but adult content in its printed form is not going to enable a school shooting or drug use. Another thought that immediately came to mind is that an in-person identification check involves some clerk looking at a tiny card for two seconds and promptly forgetting what they've seen. A check on a website will result in your information being permanently stored in a database that will be cracked in three months and sold around the world losing you money or job opportunities or even personal relationships. Where most disagree with me, and I'd imagine no one will see this because YouTube keeps suppressing my comments, is that I don't think there should be an ID check in-person either. I take more of an Amish stance on rearing children where while they're underage they shouldn't be out of adult supervision. If they're in a store that sells adult content, a parent or adult guardian should be present to prevent them even handling such material from any shelf, let alone to buy it. You do have the right idea when it comes to internet usage and at home it shouldn't be openly accessible from any device that you allow your children to use. I would argue that until they're an adult they shouldn't have more than a JitterBug as a cell phone. Not the newer "smart" phone style versions, but the flip phone with a black and white matrix screen. Tablets with wi-fi and no ability to access the internet through any cell tower so you can restrict access with your home router. As for the talk on religions, I take the stance that Catholicism is a cult. Prove me wrong. However, that said, I'm not a Christian either, and while I respect most Christian denominations, I see a lot of modern day corruption in the various sects. Maybe you agree, or maybe not, but I think Judaism is quite possibly the only true religion that hasn't been corrupted. I would argue that Islam was corrupt from the start, as a converse to that argument. Quite frankly, I'd be shocked if even one person agreed with this comment in part or in whole. I have a somewhat unique stance on a lot of things as I've discovered the more people I've talked to in the world.
    11
  2.  @nephatrine  If you live in an area where P is outlawed, then the mere consumption of it can get you whipped in public or even executed, and that includes the completely pedestrian stuff. It has happened and continues to happen in various countries around the world.
    3
  3.  @keyboardwarrior6296  So regulating one type of speech is not abridging the first amendment? It sounds like you're saying that restricting someone's right to free speech is okay when it's speech you disagree with? If that's the case then you'll be happy to know that we already live in such a banana republic (regardless of which nation you live in because the US just proved that it's one along with all the rest).
    2
  4.  @keyboardwarrior6296  The Supreme Court has ruled that it most definitely is protected speech, and now you've stooped to slander. I neither have, nor do I want to expose any children to such things. It's up to parents to prevent their children from seeing such things and it's not incumbent upon me or any business to protect your children from your abuse and/or neglect. The government has no right to restrict speech either, and to equate speech to physical violence is at best reductive, at worst a sign of mental illness.
    2
  5.  @keyboardwarrior6296  You buy everything these days. It's called advertisement and it extracts value from your life. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what free actually means.
    2
  6.  @keyboardwarrior6296  The huge difference here, and why you're wrong, is that in the case of one the parent, who should be monitoring their child's usage of the internet or time spent in a store, has a choice to simply not look. In the case of the other the choice is taken from them. If you want to say that you don't think people should be free to choose their own path in life, then go ahead and spew that tyranny. Otherwise, hopefully, you'll realize you're wrong and maybe come around to the side of goodness.
    2
  7.  @keyboardwarrior6296  That's a false equivalency. Religion doesn't corrupt children. Imparting morals on a child is a good thing.
    1
  8.  @keyboardwarrior6296  That's not even remotely correct, and doesn't connect as the flasher isn't selling a product, they're randomly attacking someone. It's almost like you think your false equivalencies make a valid argument.
    1
  9.  @phoneywheeze  The only way a system could work where the government does the verification is where you have an identifier that the website can check without giving the government any information other than that single identifier. A simple pass/fail where you're of age or you're not. However, we all know that it would be exploited by the government to gather even more information on the citizenry than they should have and I'd rather see no age verification at all, even with in-person purchases.
    1
  10. If true, then that's a sad state of affairs. It wouldn't surprise me though, given the current state of technology.
    1