Ultimate boomer law - "joke" bill bans phones for people under 21

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

so in US you can have sex at 18 but can't have phones before 21? you can drive at 18 but can't have a phone for emergency? a 18 year old can feel threatened but can't call someone so


 
 

[mr moose]

I still find it amusing that a US politician apparently goes full moron in order to prove a point and the internet reacts by either taking him seriously and dismissing the bill using his age instead of a reasoned argument while the other half take it seriously and ironically misses the fact he is on their side.  

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

so in US you can have sex at 18 but can't have phones before 21? you can drive at 18 but can't have a phone for emergency? a 18 year old can feel threatened but can't call someone so


 
 

Yep, because the police are legally required to take your phone call seriously and do everything in their power to assist you, including teleport to your location. Wait, no,they have zero legal obligation to do any of that unless direct threat to life and limb is occurring directly in front of them.

 

 

As to the OP calling this the ultimate boomer law, it is merely a variation on the oft referenced analogy of cars and guns. Since legal gun ownership as a cohort has not gotten significantly older when controlling for law variations it is decidedly not a boomer law. Meanwhile, the major anti-gun organizations in America get more than 50-70%(the NRA is a bit over 10% for comparison) of their funding from billionaires and millionaires. Indeed, without Bloomberg's influence they would largely cease to exist and anything that remained would be complelty ineffectual from a influence standpoint.

[Intrafinesse]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I still find it amusing that a US politician apparently goes full moron in order to prove a point and the internet reacts by either taking him seriously and dismissing the bill using his age instead of a reasoned argument while the other half take it seriously and ironically misses the fact he is on their side.  

Why should people actually read the article before commenting?

Isn't it sufficient to read a headline only?

 

 

[redbread123]

don't worry the politician who wrote this bill is going to rot to death before it ever gets passed

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Intrafinesse said:

Why should people actually read the article before commenting?

Isn't it sufficient to read a headline only?

 

 

 

I have to admit I didn't read it either, but then I wasn't refuting a crucial part of the bill or article, I was correcting the people who assumed the bill was only conceived due to the politicians age.

[reapersivan]

Kids should use flip phones.

[TechyBen]

21 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Is this a real bill or just a joke people are pretending is real?

 

UPDATE: it was a joke bill:

The bill was introduced by Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex-Orleans. Rodgers said Wednesday he introduced the bill to make a point.

“I have no delusions that it’s going to pass. I wouldn’t probably vote for it myself,” he said

 

Apparently it’s already been voted down.  It’s not happening.  It’s fish wrap.

 

Joke bills have occasionally gone places.  The bill to give women basic rights was introduced originally as a joke bill by a conservative republican who’s name I forget.  This one didn’t though. People are treating it like it actually passed though.  It Diddnt.

Still kinda a waste of time. IF you want to make a statement, make a practical well thought out and understandable one. Making a "lol look at me" one, might make you the fool/court jester.

[Bombastinator]

35 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Still kinda a waste of time. IF you want to make a statement, make a practical well thought out and understandable one. Making a "lol look at me" one, might make you the fool/court jester.

Lolwut?  Mispost?  Definition of “you” is perhaps vague in this instance.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Bombastinator
Explanation

[Murasaki]

Loool and then all the big phone manufacturers knock on his door.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Lolwut?  Mispost?  Definition of “you” is perhaps vague in this instance.

Nah, the "you" is the person proposing the law. I was commenting on how while the politician has no delusions (as you quoted) it will pass, they still are acting silly putting it forwards. Not "you" as in your post, but the person you quoted.

[Tech_Dreamer]

it probably wont get passed, but depends on the community.

[Sauron]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Still doesn't explain what his age has got to do with anything?

I don't know, you mentioned "young people" supposedly demanding impractical laws...

16 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Yeah.  I saw that bit.  I didn’t  Think it was what you were referring to because it’s such a canned comment.

It could in theory by why he did it.  Smells heavily of BS to me though.  Have to look at how the voting procedure in that state at that time works.  If it was to stop another bill from being voted on by forcing a vote on another bill with a similar subject there will be evidence.  In Vermont.

Can you name that bill and show that evidence? Regardless, can we at least agree he's being incredibly dishonest?

12 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

To be fair, I wouldn't be against a bill like this, with a more reasonable age of around 12-15 (Starting high school). I'm not really sure though, we've entered into an age where just about everything you would want to know is at your fingertips. How would this affect the development of teenagers, and for that matter young children?

Can we leave that decision to the kids' parents?

 

Some kids need to be reachable at all times for a variety of reasons, a carpet ban makes absolutely no sense and the exceptions you'd have to include to make the law tolerable would be so many that it would just turn into a hot mess. Furthermore, what even counts as a phone here? Is it just the GSM antenna that makes a phone a phone in this context? Would tablets be allowed? LTE capable tablets? Or would anything with an internet connection be off limits? Would parents be allowed to let their kids use an educational app on their phone?

 

Maybe we could just include some competent education on technology and the internet in elementary schools...

14 hours ago, corsairian said:

Apple wont let this bill pass. Apple's Congress critters will shit this bull out. The Under 21 is a huge market for apple, Samsung, and all these other Phone Manufacturers. They're not gonna let their profits suffer from a bill like this passing. If it's for driving only, sure. But not a blanket ban on phones.

Pretty sure driving while on the phone is already illegal. As for who might not let this pass, don't worry, the guy said even he wouldn't vote for it. He's just a bad troll. In a position of power.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Nah, the "you" is the person proposing the law. I was commenting on how while the politician has no delusions (as you quoted) it will pass, they still are acting silly putting it forwards. Not "you" as in your post, but the person you quoted.

I think a well thought out response with appropriate supporting evidence would not have been reported, likely just ignored by most and we certainly wouldn't know anything about it.  At least after this effort he has managed to get a few news articles and forums talking about it.  Even if half the responses are people who don't understand the situation or his intention, the other half are now aware there is at least one politician willing to put his name to an issue against the mire of corporate persuasion.   This is not to say his motives are just or moral. he may only be creating noise to distract from something else much more sinister for all we know.  But it has had the intended effect he planned.

 

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I don't know, you mentioned "young people" supposedly demanding impractical laws...

 

I was illustrating the silliness of criticizing a law based on the age of the person who proposed it.

[Bramimond]

On 1/11/2020 at 11:07 AM, Master Disaster said:

That doesn't work. Look at the UKs "Porn Pass" idea as an example.

It doesn't have to. It's illegal to kill people, yet murders still happen all the time. Laws aren't there to prevent crime, they're to deal with it afterwards. If discovered. Well, actually laws are more like a weapon of the state against it's citizens. Something you do is most likely illegal, so pretty much everyone can be dealt with through the legal system. If it was designed to prevent crime, the first step would be for every citizen to actually know all the laws, since you can only avoid illegal behavior if you know what's illegal and what's not.  Anyway...

 

The big advantage of making it illegal for kids to use the Internet, is that no one has to accommodate them anymore. If they get "harmed" by using the Internet it's their fault for accessing it. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I don't know, you mentioned "young people" supposedly demanding impractical laws...

Can you name that bill and show that evidence? Regardless, can we at least agree he's being incredibly dishonest?

Can we leave that decision to the kids' parents?

 

Some kids need to be reachable at all times for a variety of reasons, a carpet ban makes absolutely no sense and the exceptions you'd have to include to make the law tolerable would be so many that it would just turn into a hot mess. Furthermore, what even counts as a phone here? Is it just the GSM antenna that makes a phone a phone in this context? Would tablets be allowed? LTE capable tablets? Or would anything with an internet connection be off limits? Would parents be allowed to let their kids use an educational app on their phone?

 

Maybe we could just include some competent education on technology and the internet in elementary schools...

Pretty sure driving while on the phone is already illegal. As for who might not let this pass, don't worry, the guy said even he wouldn't vote for it. He's just a bad troll. In a position of power.

Specific legislation minutes combined with a synopsis of Vermont state legislative procedure rules.  I’m sure they exist somewhere.  I don’t even live in Vermont.  You have the same level of access I do, and I don’t even know what nation you live in.

 

I don’t know what or what was not dishonest in this case except I merely suspect that his claim of justification was possibly not genuine.

 

It doesn’t matter.  As far as law goes it’s fish wrap.  I’m not even sure if he’s a democrat or a republican.  It’s been claimed both ways here. His views on the second amendment can go either way.  Red claims gun rights are its bailiwick, and its only partially false because a lot of gun control advocates tend to be blue, but there are a lot of gun rights advocates that are blue as well. “Conservative” and “liberal” aren’t what the parties are about and never were.  They have occasionally wound up aligning that way, but coincidence is not causality.  It’s been reversed before.

[TechyBen]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think a well thought out response with appropriate supporting evidence would not have been reported, likely just ignored by most and we certainly wouldn't know anything about it.  At least after this effort he has managed to get a few news articles and forums talking about it.  Even if half the responses are people who don't understand the situation or his intention, the other half are now aware there is at least one politician willing to put his name to an issue against the mire of corporate persuasion.   This is not to say his motives are just or moral. he may only be creating noise to distract from something else much more sinister for all we know.  But it has had the intended effect he planned.

 

I was illustrating the silliness of criticizing a law based on the age of the person who proposed it.

Confusion is your worst enemy. Rather take things slow, then get a crowd accidentally running off a cliff.

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, Bramimond said:

It doesn't have to. It's illegal to kill people, yet murders still happen all the time. Laws aren't there to prevent crime, they're to deal with it afterwards. If discovered. Well, actually laws are more like a weapon of the state against it's citizens. Something you do is most likely illegal, so pretty much everyone can be dealt with through the legal system. If it was designed to prevent crime, the first step would be for every citizen to actually know all the laws, since you can only avoid illegal behavior if you know what's illegal and what's not.  Anyway...

 

The big advantage of making it illegal for kids to use the Internet, is that no one has to accommodate them anymore. If they get "harmed" by using the Internet it's their fault for accessing it. 

Yeah, but that law is a practical limitation. Not an impractical "we require every uttered word to be checked, vetted and licensed before you speak to anyone about anything" law (as an example). So while we do need laws (do not murder), we also have to be reasonable ("never do anything that could possibly lead to death at some point in time" is almost impossible to keep to if you want to step out of your bed. ).

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I’m sure they exist somewhere.

So you're just imagining things to fit your idea.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

You have the same level of access I do

Yes, but I didn't make a claim I couldn't substantiate with any evidence whatsoever.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know what or what was not dishonest in this case except I merely suspect that his claim of justification was possibly not genuine.

He'd be dishonest if he lied in his justification, and he'd be dishonest if he didn't lie and provided a justification of such poor logic.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

I’m not even sure if he’s a democrat or a republican.

I had no doubt, but either way 5 seconds on Google confirmed he's a republican.

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

“Conservative” and “liberal” aren’t what the parties are about and never were.  They have occasionally wound up aligning that way, but coincidence is not causality.  It’s been reversed before.

Arguing that republicans aren't currently overwhelmingly and hardline conservative is either denial or delusion. I would argue that a lot of democrats are also conservative, but this level of exaggeration and self delusion is distinctly republican at the moment and they have been for a few decades now.

 

As for the party switch you mentioned, republican talking heads are the ones who are hell bent on denying it despite the very clear evidence. Then again that seems to be their best party trick - denying all evidence to get their way.

[cesh me inside b0z]

30 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So you're just imagining things to fit your idea.

Yes, but I didn't make a claim I couldn't substantiate with any evidence whatsoever.

He'd be dishonest if he lied in his justification, and he'd be dishonest if he didn't lie and provided a justification of such poor logic.

I had no doubt, but either way 5 seconds on Google confirmed he's a republican.

Arguing that republicans aren't currently overwhelmingly and hardline conservative is either denial or delusion. I would argue that a lot of democrats are also conservative, but this level of exaggeration and self delusion is distinctly republican at the moment and they have been for a few decades now.

 

As for the party switch you mentioned, republican talking heads are the ones who are hell bent on denying it despite the very clear evidence. Then again that seems to be their best party trick - denying all evidence to get their way.

Tentacle porn.

[colonel_mortis]

This isn't tech news, it's politics that happens to mention tech.

 

The discussion doesn't seem remotely tech related at this point, and political discussions are banned here because they have a long history of being disasters (this topic is heading dangerously in that direction too).

 

Topic locked.