00:00
00:00
Upgrade Your Account!

Hey! To start this decade right, we believe Newgrounds should be ad-free for EVERYONE. For this to work, we need people who have the means to become paying supporters. For just $3 per month or $25 for the year, you can help this happen and get some nice perks!

For the month of January we have disabled ads on all E-M content. We need 185 people to reach our January goal of 3,000 active supporters. If we hit that, we'll continue with a new goal in February!

Please check out our Supporter Upgrade and consider coming aboard!

Vermont Looking To Ban Phones

663 Views | 52 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-09 18:53:53


"Well, according to a bill introduced in the Vermont Senate, owning a cellphone under the age of 21 would be illegal in the state, should the legislation pass."

Absolutely fucking dumb

"The bill, S.212, would make possession or use of a cellphone a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of a year behind bars or a $1,000 fine or both."

The day I get arrested for something so dumb is the day I give up and end my life

"According to the legislation, there are links between cellphone use by people under the age of 21 to a rise in driving fatalities, suicides, mass shootings, and terrorism."

It's already illegal to drive while on the cell phone. How about you enforce that law. Ya know, maybe do your fucking jobs pigs. Mass shootings, suicides, and terrorism are always linked to shit like this, when in reality it's a parent's duty to keep an eye on their kid and what they're doing on the internet. I'm gonna be so happy when the previous generation of people die out, because they're the only ones who believe this stupid shit. And I didn't get that mentality from the internet, I got that mentality from an adoptive parent who didn't raise me right.

“The internet and social media, accessed primarily through cell phones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists,” the bill reads.

Yeah, that doesn't mean that's all it's for. We got YouTube, porn, music, and games, which are all amazing things, but I'm gonna assume people like these cunts also believe that those all toxic as well for dumb ass reasons.

"Senator John Rodgers, a Democrat, said he introduced the bill on Tuesday to make a point."

If you look up a picture of John Rodgers, he looks like Jefferey Dahmer and Ron Swanson had a baby somehow. You expect me trust that face?

“I have no delusions that it’s going to pass,” he told the Barre Montpelier Times Argus newspaper on Wednesday. “I wouldn’t probably vote for it myself.”

Then your bitch-ass better be doing this as a publicity stunt.

"Rodgers says he thinks owning a cellphone may be more dangerous than owning a gun."

It doesn't matter if you have a phone, what matters is how you use it. People don't always use phones for crimes and honestly people literally need it, whereas guns should only be for military.

https://www.wfla.com/news/national/proposed-bill-would-ban-cellphone-use-for-anyone-under-21/?fbclid=IwAR0OvUvHdvG2lB_6aZWC4wzMLel_NSnOBJl-ae8OQ0umAWVV36-vR1vwGQM

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-09 19:52:19


*Looks at the link*


*Reads the bill*


Yup, that seems to check out. That's a pretty fucking stupid bill, all right.


Hey Vermont Democrats, you should consider primarying his dumb ass the next chance y'all get.


Need some music for a flash or game? Check it out. If none of this works send me a PM, I'm taking requests.

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-09 20:16:25


Wikipedia says he was born in 65, so you can kinda call this an old man yells at clouds situation.


Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-11 12:45:44


Damn young people and their...


*shuffles deck of cards*


Cellphones.


BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-11 14:02:38


Apparantly it's to make a point about gun ownership.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vermont-cell-phones/


Because phones, and guns are so similar in the problems they cause, I guess???


Play Sick Games: [1] [2] [3]

BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-11 14:10:56


At 1/11/20 02:02 PM, Little-Rena wrote: Apparantly it's to make a point about gun ownership.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vermont-cell-phones/

Because phones, and guns are so similar in the problems they cause, I guess???


I don't know


Those walkie talkies they added to ET are kinda like cell phones and look pretty scary


If I've learned anything from voting results, it's that people dumb enough to vote for this sort of crap tend to vote.

Of all the people who vote in this country, the delusional and clueless are the most rabid voters.


And that's great.

Don't do anything about those individual issues, just ban some inanimate object that relies on people doing something with it in order for it to be a negative thing.


It's like our national passtime.

Banning things to avoid the effort of actually fixing societal issues, America's favorite game!

Maybe our politicians should have to pass an official reality check test once they reach the age of 50.


What's next? Are they going to ban painkillers because actually going after the opioid manufacturers and distributors would require actual effort?


Sleep so many dream, sugar prince.

لن أريكم مكان صنع عصير الليمون. నిమ్మకాయ లేదు.

BBS Signature

At 1/9/20 06:53 PM, StaticSkull2 wrote: It doesn't matter if you have a phone, what matters is how you use it. People don't always use phones for crimes and honestly people literally need it, whereas guns should only be for military.


You're contradicting yourself there.

I would like to think that the rule of individual user accountability should apply to all objects.


You can't tell a responsible phone user who has a need for a phone that they aren't allowed to have one because a few idiots text and drive, and you can't tell a law abiding citizen in a dangerous area that they can't own firearms because a few psychos use them for criminal/terrorist activities.


You deal with the problems that bring about the dangerous activity, not take things from law abiding people because of the actions of a few idiots/psychos.


What are these people supposed to do if they need an ambulance or the police?

It's thoughtless feel good measures like this that prevent real problems which bring about dangerous activity from being solved.


Sleep so many dream, sugar prince.

لن أريكم مكان صنع عصير الليمون. నిమ్మకాయ లేదు.

BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-11 18:11:51


Reasonable answer: Smartphone banning doesn’t solve any particular grievance and is best left to the parents to determine what is acceptable for anyone under 21. Furthermore, the downsides of smartphone usage is mostly tangential at best and easily avoided with a dose of awareness and common sense and only serves to scapegoat technology that they may not understand.


The answer in my head: These politicians are fucking stupid and anyone who agrees with this is either a bored Russian bot or an out of touch dinosaur who can piss up a rope. Democrats have far more pressing matters that actually affects the future of young people and a better tomorrow, and smartphones isn’t one of them. Fuck this nanny state clown and fuck anyone who supports this bill, (I know it will never pass, but still) the troglodytes can choke on a bucket of fish heads.


In all seriousness though, we need to stop promoting nanny state bills that no one is going to support that only serves to alienate the majority of people over technology that is necessary, or at least harmless. Democrats need to be better than to be petty narcs who restrict the finer things in life, or risk being a pariah by the majority.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 06:26:47


based and redpilled


At 1/9/20 06:53 PM, StaticSkull2 wrote: We got YouTube, porn, music, and games, which are all amazing things, but I'm gonna assume people like these cunts also believe that those all toxic as well for dumb ass reasons.


how is access to countless hours of hardcore pornography not toxic? even if you deny the correlation on how it damages relationships between men and women, gives people damaging perceptions of the other sex and often leads to impotence, don't you at least think it's harmful for young people to risk being exposed to this stuff?


"Till one day, that lion gets up and tears the shit out of everybody."

BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 07:13:27


At 1/9/20 06:53 PM, StaticSkull2 wrote: "Well, according to a bill introduced in the Vermont Senate, owning a cellphone under the age of 21 would be illegal in the state, should the legislation pass."
Absolutely fucking dumb
"The bill, S.212, would make possession or use of a cellphone a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of a year behind bars or a $1,000 fine or both."
The day I get arrested for something so dumb is the day I give up and end my life
"According to the legislation, there are links between cellphone use by people under the age of 21 to a rise in driving fatalities, suicides, mass shootings, and terrorism."
It's already illegal to drive while on the cell phone. How about you enforce that law. Ya know, maybe do your fucking jobs pigs. Mass shootings, suicides, and terrorism are always linked to shit like this, when in reality it's a parent's duty to keep an eye on their kid and what they're doing on the internet. I'm gonna be so happy when the previous generation of people die out, because they're the only ones who believe this stupid shit. And I didn't get that mentality from the internet, I got that mentality from an adoptive parent who didn't raise me right.
“The internet and social media, accessed primarily through cell phones, are used to radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists,” the bill reads.
Yeah, that doesn't mean that's all it's for. We got YouTube, porn, music, and games, which are all amazing things, but I'm gonna assume people like these cunts also believe that those all toxic as well for dumb ass reasons.
"Senator John Rodgers, a Democrat, said he introduced the bill on Tuesday to make a point."
If you look up a picture of John Rodgers, he looks like Jefferey Dahmer and Ron Swanson had a baby somehow. You expect me trust that face?
“I have no delusions that it’s going to pass,” he told the Barre Montpelier Times Argus newspaper on Wednesday. “I wouldn’t probably vote for it myself.”
Then your bitch-ass better be doing this as a publicity stunt.
"Rodgers says he thinks owning a cellphone may be more dangerous than owning a gun."
It doesn't matter if you have a phone, what matters is how you use it. People don't always use phones for crimes and honestly people literally need it, whereas guns should only be for military.
https://www.wfla.com/news/national/proposed-bill-would-ban-cellphone-use-for-anyone-under-21/?fbclid=IwAR0OvUvHdvG2lB_6aZWC4wzMLel_NSnOBJl-ae8OQ0umAWVV36-vR1vwGQM


To me as much as it pisses me off seeing parents give children mobile devices due to. It increases links to mental illness due to early exposure, selling data, and what not.... I see the internet as PG-13 And above service than a kid friendly environment at all any sort of capacity at all. But making it illegal to have the phone being below the age of 21? That's fucking insane. This is specifically trying to control the populace in their everyday lives. I already found the democrats too authoritarian, but this is selling their ideas are clearly exposing themselves to invade people's bedrooms. I am sick of hearing about every politician being like " Let's ban this shit because I don't like it, and nobody else should be able to enjoy it " That's with guns, NSFW Content ( looking at you Florida for going after a absolutely horrible drawn comic book artist with extreme controversial subject matter criticizing the bells the you toll and labeling it as ) , Basic needs ( by jacking up the prices in the name of regulation ), and media.


I mainly hate seeing parents use their mobile devices as substitutes for baby sitters. I know full damn well what type of content is on the internet. I would say there is a reason why the internet was better when it was more niche and wasn't trying to be be a squeaky place. As it would immedately give you a general " GROW UP, OR GET THE FUCK OUT " With the NSFW advertisements, or if it was brand, it would be the video screaming fuck, shit, and what lovely profanity is spouted from the creator of the video's mouth. I find the constant cleansing of the internet is purposely attracts more kids and leads to worse problems. Vermont looking to ban phones, should be asking " What types of parents can we fuck over".


As that's basically fucking over Sports teenagers, I know how much society enjoys that bread and circus act. Band students also get fucked over as how many of us were genuine did the practices on our instruments and knows how long they took after school? What about the people with swimming practice? Or simply tutoring with the teacher.


Seeing this straight up making it illegal for anyone with a phone if they are the age below twenty one makes me furious. If just made a public service announcement about mobile devices causing a slow deterioration of mental health, and get off of the damn phone when driving would've been acceptable, but also pissed me off as it would require our tax paying asses to make instead of private investment. Not asking if we support the message or not, just force us to pay for shit that we don't use or don't care about. Discourage or frown upon parents that give their kids mobile access completely unrestricted. I am not asking for helicopter parenting, nor the other extreme. Just raise your fucking kids right and off of the internet or atleast keep it restricted and no going passed bed time.


So you are saying that if you are the age of eighteen and able to legally have sex, move out of your parents home, induldge in hentai of all kinds of kink and softcore, vote for a cheeto or liar in office, and start a family ( not recommended in the modern economy or at all 18), but can't have a damn mobile device? Hell some jobs require fucking mobile devices, now going to restrict a way for boss to employee to not be able to use " When I work" application? iu_85117_6652573.jpg


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 07:14:14


At 1/9/20 08:16 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: Wikipedia says he was born in 65, so you can kinda call this an old man yells at clouds situation.


With a double meaning of internet only storage and literally the clouds. xD


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 07:17:33


At 1/11/20 02:02 PM, Little-Rena wrote: Apparantly it's to make a point about gun ownership.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vermont-cell-phones/

Because phones, and guns are so similar in the problems they cause, I guess???


Basically illegalizing the responsibility for the end user. As he is comparing a mobile device to a gun, that's kind of dumb. These two devices are yes able to great good, and great harm, but on average can do great things given the user is mentally knowledgeable about the responsibility of having it. Though guns require a shit ton more responsibility and restrictions


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 07:22:54


At 1/11/20 04:07 PM, JosephStarr wrote: If I've learned anything from voting results, it's that people dumb enough to vote for this sort of crap tend to vote.
Of all the people who vote in this country, the delusional and clueless are the most rabid voters.

And that's great.
Don't do anything about those individual issues, just ban some inanimate object that relies on people doing something with it in order for it to be a negative thing.

It's like our national passtime.
Banning things to avoid the effort of actually fixing societal issues, America's favorite game!
Maybe our politicians should have to pass an official reality check test once they reach the age of 50.
What's next? Are they going to ban painkillers because actually going after the opioid manufacturers and distributors would require actual effort?

Have we forgot, those delusional and dumb voters are non-playable characters? They are auto-pilot with less consciousness than a crow, rat, racoon, a doggo, hell to push it a mother fucking marsupial! Totally act like they lack of a corpus collusum or varient ( the part of a brain associated with speech and reasoning )


They just want to ban objects that require responsibility. Drugs and Medications require responsibility, so do guns, and big old fat wads of green cash!


The Devil!Rat dropped in!


At 1/12/20 06:26 AM, Radaketor wrote: based and redpilled

At 1/9/20 06:53 PM, StaticSkull2 wrote: We got YouTube, porn, music, and games, which are all amazing things, but I'm gonna assume people like these cunts also believe that those all toxic as well for dumb ass reasons.
how is access to countless hours of hardcore pornography not toxic? even if you deny the correlation on how it damages relationships between men and women, gives people damaging perceptions of the other sex and often leads to impotence, don't you at least think it's harmful for young people to risk being exposed to this stuff?


.... That's their parent's fault for giving Little Temmy all the access to the internet without using something meet.circle or other alternatives to controlling their web searches and media usage atleast... Men and women relationships yes gone down the shitter, but blaming sexual media for that is wrong... Look at the life time sentences of men and women and compare them, or who pays child support more often than not, including who files divorce first. Most viewers of NSFW are on average... More egilitarian on average... With great freedom, comes great responsibility for any piece of "art or media"


Adult Content ( NSFW ) is called ADULT CONTENT for a reason. It isn't intended to be consumed by the masses, not intended to be consumed by puritans, not intended to be consumed by the public.... But specificly just adults wanting to see something shocking or knocks their socks off. Most websites make it clear it is ADULT CONTENT, with a 18+ nobody should have to give a little data. Exposing younger and younger people to this content is more likely their friend's fault or a strange on the internet... Or hell I believe is absolutely damaging to younger people due to not being intended for them to consume. That's like giving Agony in Pink to anyone or even just Fifty Shades of Grey to any folk that doesn't know what type of content it is without decerning fiction from reality. It will be damaging, but it is clearly ADULT content.


Isn't that invading the bedroom too? Saying NSFW gives damaging perceptions of men and women, deviant art has always been giving the middle finger to perceptions of the other sex in beauty for years. Without having to show a single dick, vagina, and boob. Just simply with Flatten Fetish, Vore, Inflation, Stuffed, and FEET.


I hope you realize that 1/3 of porn is made by the bible belt, the state you are spouting the morals of what some of us assume? I honestly see the divide between men and women is getting worse.


Don't signal your anti-NSFW here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CpGN9ItNg


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 09:32:33


At 1/12/20 08:22 AM, DevilRat wrote: .... That's their parent's fault for giving Little Temmy all the access to the internet without using something meet.

Be careful about being baited into an argument for the sake of arguing. Regardless of whether this is one of people’s issues, their problem is what they can access on the internet rather than smartphones. Banning phones would not resolve this.


Story on CNN as I can’t access it otherwise

"I'm not going to push for the bill to pass," he said. "I wouldn't vote for the thing. This is just to make a point."


I think it’s disappointing to have officials who represent their views in the senate, rather than those of their electorate.

Bills submitted to make a point are also a farce. For a supposedly large number of House-passed bills sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk, I hate the idea that there’s Democratic senators clogging it up something that could be dismissed over a coffee-table.


BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 09:53:16


At 1/12/20 09:32 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:
At 1/12/20 08:22 AM, DevilRat wrote: .... That's their parent's fault for giving Little Temmy all the access to the internet without using something meet.
Be careful about being baited into an argument for the sake of arguing. Regardless of whether this is one of people’s issues, their problem is what they can access on the internet rather than smartphones. Banning phones would not resolve this.

Story on CNN as I can’t access it otherwise
"I'm not going to push for the bill to pass," he said. "I wouldn't vote for the thing. This is just to make a point."

I think it’s disappointing to have officials who represent their views in the senate, rather than those of their electorate.
Bills submitted to make a point are also a farce. For a supposedly large number of House-passed bills sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk, I hate the idea that there’s Democratic senators clogging it up something that could be dismissed over a coffee-table.


Sorry if came off brash on that, but I find internet access should be admitly very wide spread... Democratic party doesn't get that the internet isn't for them as people always retalitate in every way imaginable. They used to have comment sections on their articles, now they don't. Twitter a primarily left wing website just put a statement feature or is in the works to specificly not talk backs. I thought the block button was enough. Now it is make a statement and that's it with no sort of chat going on.


When it come's to children's access to the world wide web... I find it, that no matter what people can do. It isn't possible to stop it without restricting the freedom of other users... Like force an ID system where you got to have an ID to access websites, and give away your already non-existient anonymity because children use websites that are not supposed to... When I mean by an ID, like the age of eighteen card. With a picture of your face sort of thing. Asking for both pieces of information. Which would make the internet far from free in the sake of children's safety. Well I already know china has a social credit system..... Which controls basic things on anything. I find that democratic party trying to ban phones for people below 21 sickening as it is just a way to cancel most young people that disagree with them as well.


As most people do not have computers as much as they used to. Plenty of people do, but there is a growing base of mobile users that is being more capitalized on than ever. to do web applications.


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 12:54:32


At 1/12/20 09:53 AM, DevilRat wrote: Sorry if came off brash on that, but I find internet access should be admittedly very wide spread...

I agree.


Democratic party doesn't get that the internet isn't for them as people always retalitate in every way imaginable. They used to have comment sections on their articles, now they don't.

That’s their choice - it’s their website. Not everything needs to have a comment section. They can still be challenged on their policies on unaligned websites.

Twitter a primarily left wing website just put a statement feature or is in the works to specificly not talk backs. I thought the block button was enough. Now it is make a statement and that's it with no sort of chat going on.

Again, that’s Twitter’s choice. If it wants to alienate their userbase, they’re free to do that. Looking into it, it looks like people are still able to un-hide responses.


Back on topic, I think the reasons for banning smartphones are pretty ridiculous. The places where people find echo-chambers for suicide/terrorism/shootings aren’t removed when smartphones are taken away from them.


However, they’re easy to access and I don’t think people self-moderate very well. If kids are on phones during class or at home I think that they’re closing themselves off from the world around them, and are instead focusing on an artificial world viewed via their devices.


When it come's to children's access to the world wide web... I find it, that no matter what people can do. It isn't possible to stop it without restricting the freedom of other users...

For children, the only people who should be restricting their access are their parents. Phones (websites, computers, consoles, etc.) should have the tools to allow parents to decide how much free-rein they have on their devices.


As most people do not have computers as much as they used to. Plenty of people do, but there is a growing base of mobile users that is being more capitalized on than ever. to do web applications.

Bans on phones would pull a shift back to computers. I don’t think this senator is genuinely looking at banning phones, however.


BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 13:26:58


As a side note I didn't own a cell phone until I was in my 20s and in college. Whenever I go periods of time without my phone, quality of life actually goes way up. I'm getting more things done, being more active, being more social, etc...


While banning things doesnt go over too well, peoples lives would definitely improve of they just put their phones away a bit more.


BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-12 22:22:45


At 1/12/20 01:26 PM, Fro wrote: While banning things doesnt go over too well, peoples lives would definitely improve of they just put their phones away a bit more.


It depends when and where. If it’s at home, then it’s generally fine if you have parental controls for the younger ones. (the older kids will usually work around those controls) Now at a restaurant or social gathering, there is a more of a case by case basis, but personally, as long as they aren’t disrupting people around them, I don’t care. The only legitimate gripe against smartphone usage is on the road, particularly with texting and driving, as that is a public danger to everyone, which is why hands free devices should be, if not required, highly recommended.


I don’t buy the getting rid of the smartphones making our lives better argument, mostly because they’re too ubiquitous to ignore and in certain situations, a necessity. Frankly, I treat smartphones like alcohol, know when and where it is okay to use them and have some responsibility with them.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 00:44:18


Its such an old white man thing to pass laws that don't affect them one way or the other, but which are extremely oppressive, based on some sort of gut-feeling of fear of the unknown.


BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 08:09:31


fucks sake

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 08:31:11


See, this is why I kept all my old phones. Now I'm gonna make a killing when this law gets passed by a mob of mouth-breathing morality swines.


I put an african elephant in my fridge but I don't know how to get it out...

I'm usually over here.


So, people are getting pretty pissed off at a bill that even it's own author admitted won't pass, and is mostly meant to spark publicity and awareness - which might backfire on the politician, given the outcry.


Anyways, I think it's up to the parents to monitor their kids phone use.

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 14:30:22


At 1/13/20 01:56 PM, EdyKel wrote: So, people are getting pretty pissed off at a bill that even it's own author admitted won't pass, and is mostly meant to spark publicity and awareness - which might backfire on the politician, given the outcry.

Anyways, I think it's up to the parents to monitor their kids phone use.


you stated my exact feelings on the matter

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 15:45:06


At 1/13/20 02:30 PM, StaticSkull2 wrote:
At 1/13/20 01:56 PM, EdyKel wrote: So, people are getting pretty pissed off at a bill that even it's own author admitted won't pass, and is mostly meant to spark publicity and awareness - which might backfire on the politician, given the outcry.

Anyways, I think it's up to the parents to monitor their kids phone use.
you stated my exact feelings on the matter


Same, but then again it is starting to feel like an attempt to force political polarization even harder than it already is.


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 15:55:41


At 1/13/20 01:56 PM, EdyKel wrote: So, people are getting pretty pissed off at a bill that even it's own author admitted won't pass, and is mostly meant to spark publicity and awareness - which might backfire on the politician, given the outcry.


The problem isn’t necessarily the awareness, but the words that he used, such as linking smartphone usage with alt-right, terrorist, and other extremist view via social media. Even with that aside, the total improbability of the law passing and total logistical nightmare of such a law would practically render a law not only toothless, but adds more fuel for Republicans/Libertarians to use for trampling on personal freedoms, while making Democrats as out of touch nanny state idiots who are incapable of leadership at any level.


Anyways, I think it's up to the parents to monitor their kids phone use.


True, but this is the kind of situation where parents should practice what they preach. Cutting off their kids access to their phones, while allowing parents to use theirs’ for non-essential use can and does build up resentment with kids. It shouldn’t be that much different than parents using the MPAA or ESRB ratings as a guide, which determines what kids should and should not play/watch.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 16:03:00


At 1/13/20 03:55 PM, orangebomb wrote:
At 1/13/20 01:56 PM, EdyKel wrote: So, people are getting pretty pissed off at a bill that even it's own author admitted won't pass, and is mostly meant to spark publicity and awareness - which might backfire on the politician, given the outcry.
The problem isn’t necessarily the awareness, but the words that he used, such as linking smartphone usage with alt-right, terrorist, and other extremist view via social media. Even with that aside, the total improbability of the law passing and total logistical nightmare of such a law would practically render a law not only toothless, but adds more fuel for Republicans/Libertarians to use for trampling on personal freedoms, while making Democrats as out of touch nanny state idiots who are incapable of leadership at any level.

Anyways, I think it's up to the parents to monitor their kids phone use.
True, but this is the kind of situation where parents should practice what they preach. Cutting off their kids access to their phones, while allowing parents to use theirs’ for non-essential use can and does build up resentment with kids. It shouldn’t be that much different than parents using the MPAA or ESRB ratings as a guide, which determines what kids should and should not play/watch.


Like I said. A way to divide republicans and democrats, libertarians are more clingy to their personal freedom compared to republicans... I find the constant republican and democrats bickering is annoying. They have fundamentally changed from moderate to self-serving due to a decline in our "civil society".... Democrats being more controlling than ever, contradicts their "liberal" label. I am just sick of the republican and democrats getting more radical than ever. Then again it comes down to technology being more addictive, if the creator of the Ipad won't give their product to their kids, that should tell you something about them. I watched a decline in our society video, and oh my gosh it does make sense.


The Devil!Rat dropped in!

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 16:19:01


This is why we need better internet infrastructure into the woods, even a state deemed as hip as vermont has too many fucking rednecks


https://generated.inspirobot.me/a/qlPBXrQme5.jpg

Response to Vermont Looking To Ban Phones 2020-01-13 20:34:15


I'd like to think this was decided on with similar intentions to NYC's soda bill a few years back.

For anyone who doesn't remember, the bill prohibited the sale of Xtra Large fountain sodas, but said nothing about bottled sodas. Everyone scoffed, and pointed out the fact that one could skirt this law by buying a 2 liter bottle at the very same store, but the truth is that the bill was never really meant to save people from diabetes, it was to start a much needed dialogue about how much sugar we consume.

I can imagine this bill being drawn up with similar intentions, to just start a dialogue about the negative effects of smartphones on our collective heads.


That's just my two cents though, maybe it's just those god damn boomers at it again oh gee, who knows. Politics is becoming a fucking 90s anime.


If I'm online, I'm probably procrastinating something...

BBS Signature