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.

▲

harvey9 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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

▲

ForgetItJake 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

	▲	ForgetItJake 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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...
	▲	Jensson 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	matthewmacleod 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Indeed you don't It seems that they do indeed see what you’re saying…