Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
At 07:07 PM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote: [Cerridwyn Llewyellyn's text snipped] [Lucid argument snipped, I was with you until right around here]
I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can and can't do.
We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even "national security" to guide it. [snip] I'll preface my following remarks by saying that I'm not a libertarian.
Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for schools their own children are no longer using).
First point first. The "propaganda" taught in schools is generally aimed at teaching our children how to think. Perhaps rote learning and cultural naivete make us all comfortable at night and let us sleep better, but in a world where critical thinking is undervalued I'd rather have my and my childrens' views challenged than constantly affirmed. (Btw, I have no children at this moment, so it's quite possible to contend I'm talking out my ass here; time will tell.) Public school funding is way off topic, so I'll concede your "point" and let it slide. [Now the meat of the queer bashing, how charming. Sad to see you sully what was a decent argument up to this point with ignorant foolishness]
Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which I don't).
When was the last time a homosexual attempted to force their practices on you? I'll leave your fictitious children out of it for the moment. Are you an active eschewer or simply a theoretical eschewer? Have you ever been hit on by a gay person? I have; I told them I wasn't gay and that was that. No one forced their "AIDS-spreading practices" on me.
I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay for the research.
I usually read your posts to this list and often find them insightful, however the above statement leaves me wondering if some ignoramus has taken control of your keyboard or if the above was a simple, but remarkable, typing error. Following your reasoning, it's also proper to say that cancer and heart disease as well as violent crime resulting in death of a victim are also "evolution in action" isn't it? Your assertions are absurd and unfounded. Your final point that those who "introduced the new vector" should pay for the research for a cure continues to spotlight your inchoate notions on this topic. Pray tell, who introduced the vector? Who was responsible for the spread of the virus? Who are the victims of this disease? Who are the future victims of this disease--do they have to pay because obviously they're engaged in some kind of risky behaviour? What part does an unresponsive worldwide health structure have to pay? How responsible are you for the social blight that leads the underclasses to participate in risky behaviour through hopelessness or lack of education? Really, Mr. May, look further than your own front yard for a change. You live in a world -- welcome to it. Troy Denkinger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Troy Denkinger wrote:
We have an interesting problem here, though. You say that the government has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo. However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even "national security" to guide it.
However, parents are free not to purchase filtering software that claims that their criteria is a trade secret. I don't see this as a threat at all. The parents who refuse to buy this software don't have to worry about the filtering software preventing little Johnny from visiting a site that has information on homosexuality or subscribing to a computer science mailing list (which are apparently blocked by some filtering software for some reason). - -- Mark PGP encrypted mail prefered Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMe/8b7Zc+sv5siulAQGerAP+IWpgJ6hpbKOZcs1TPZwYLIqQLG+LccPD nOMKVKmgMndzywuqO1lg59+VX2cA2qODwQ6SjQQ+gG2eImD6nPsPpD8Q/7D1hlHW JhpPjp2UFt/xL3FtYG9/g2/4mYHx7Z0xVl51BNPHDiBMnyaskTzdk0yV2Tpo2T/8 EovM30/Lx2Q= =qGzJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can and can't do.
that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it. I think
If I'm not mistaken, the point here is that you can always choose NOT to go with filter XYZ, and instead, purchase services with filter ABC. It is still not perfect, but then, that is the point. We do not trust any SINGLE entity. However, if I have a choice of entities, then I am willing to try one, and let them abuse me in the short term. Simple free market principle says that a filter will show up with me needs sooner or later. If the filter is the government, I have no direct choice. I have very very indirect choices, but I cannot just shut off the service if I don't like it. Ern
At 8:45 AM -0700 7/19/96, Troy Denkinger wrote:
However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that that's a trade secret. So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that exists for profit to set their filters for them. This is a very scary thing and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it.
Not so fast, D'Artagnan. Let's deconstruct your statement that it's a scary thing: 1. Is it scary to the people who buy and use it? Apparently not, since they hae free choice. 2. Is your finding it scary relevant? Apparently not, since you don't have to buy it and thus have free choice. What's left except authoritarianism on your part? David
Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com> writes:
The same can be said of the children of the more politically correct. My opinion is that religion is a waste of time and resources, and therefore, those who force their children to be religious is doing precisely the same harm you allude to.
Of course they are.
That is strictly MY opinion. If there are enough of me around, should we be allowed to force the government to take children away from their religious parents? More mildly, can the government "protect" a child from religious ideas?
What gives the society more rights to regulate how the child shall be brought up, except the narrow interest of protecting the physical safety of the child? It is not even clear that the government may force a child to accept secular ideas that may violate the child's religious background, even if the government has a compelling secular interest in doing so.
This is the usual smokescreen the "parents rights" lobby brings to the bargaining table. Rather than make the debate over the rights of the child, and what resources the state should make available to the child to protect those rights, they make it a contest between the parent and the state to see who gets to violate the child's rights the most. Since most people regard parents as more benevolent than the state towards children, the parents automatically win without the reasonableness of their behavior ever coming under discussion. So instead of arguing whether children should have access to education, libraries, computers, and other resources in their own right, we get the usual endless debate over whether the state or the parent should exercise the absolute iron-fisted control parents all seem to think is such a wonderful thing, with anything other than state collaboration with the parents wishes being represented as the state usurping the parental role. Been there. Done that. And as the Scottish would say, "It's Crap."
Yes, we would like fewer Hitler's in the future. But should we NOT let the people decide how the raise their children because there is some risk of a few of them turning into future Hitlers?
Again, children have a right to go to libraries, get educated, and use telecommunications resources without interference by EITHER the state or their parents. As is usual, the people who are against children having these rights try to sell everyone the notion that the only choice is between their two handpicked and equally unacceptable alternatives - iron-fisted state control or iron-fisted parental control of everything children do. We see the same rhetoric at work with things like curfew laws as well. The question is always phrased as "should the state or the parents set curfews." Whereas, the real question is "Should police or parents have the right to harrass a 17 year old who is out in public, behaving himself, simply because it is 9 PM at night?" The best way to raise "Fewer Hitlers" is to have a generation of children who lack the internalized rage produced by being walked on like doormats by numerous authority figures while they are growing up. This includes both parents and representatives of the government. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
clear that the government may force a child to accept secular ideas that may violate the child's religious background, even if the government has a compelling secular interest in doing so.
This is the usual smokescreen the "parents rights" lobby brings to the bargaining table. Rather than make the debate over the rights of the child, and what resources the state should make available to the child to protect those rights, they make it a contest between the parent and the state to see who gets to violate the child's rights the most.
I am not anybody's lobby, so you can just cut the accusation crap. Secondly, I expect to have full control over the education and the upbringing of my child. I DO NOT have to let him go the library. I DO NOT have to let him read any literature. I DO NOT have to let him have an open mind. It is NOT in the Constitution. I will do so because I believe it is good for him. Anyone who wants to change what I decide is good for him will have to do so over my dead body.
So instead of arguing whether children should have access to education, libraries, computers, and other resources in their own right, we get the usual endless debate over whether the state or
Been there. Done that. And as the Scottish would say, "It's Crap."
I really could care less what you feel about how I should raise my child.
Again, children have a right to go to libraries, get educated, and use telecommunications resources without interference by EITHER the state or their parents.
This truly IS pure crap. Parents have a responsibility. Your arbitrary choice of "parental rights" is just rhetorical method for implying that parents are selfishly fighting for their own good at the detriment to the child. In fact, most parents are loving, caring, and try very hard to do what is "good" (in their mind) for their child. You, sir, do not have some God-given monopoly on knowing what is good for any child, let alone, mine. Therefore, nobody (not you, not the PTA, not the school, not the Congress) has any right to tell me what is good for my child. Call it what you want; you ain't brainwashing my child with your bull. Ern
Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com> writes:
Secondly, I expect to have full control over the education and the upbringing of my child. I DO NOT have to let him go the library. I DO NOT have to let him read any literature. I DO NOT have to let him have an open mind. It is NOT in the Constitution.
Since the courts have said that humans under 18 are not "persons" under the law, you have every right to not let your child read anything, to not let him think for himself, and to not let him out of the house until he reaches his 18th birthday. Your child would presently have no recourse against you should you choose to treat him in such a fashion, and believe it or not, there are some of us who would like to change that.
I will do so because I believe it is good for him.
Good for you, at least.
Anyone who wants to change what I decide is good for him will have to do so over my dead body.
Works for me. I needn't point out that if I were ever on a jury charged with determining whether your child, treated in the aforementioned fashion, was guilty of a crime for splattering your brains all over the living room wall like tapioca pudding, I would find it almost impossible to vote for conviction.
I really could care less what you feel about how I should raise my child.
You know, when children whine "I don't care what anyone else thinks - No one has a right to tell me what to do", alarm bells go off all over the place. When parents say the exact same thing, they think they deserve some sort of medal.
In fact, most parents are loving, caring, and try very hard to do what is "good" (in their mind) for their child. You, sir, do not have some God-given monopoly on knowing what is good for any child, let alone, mine.
The obvious fact is, neither do you. Anyone with an IQ over 10 and genitals that are in working order can produce offspring. You seem to think that the act of reproduction instantly transforms the scum of the earth into child-rearing experts who must never be contradicted by any outside agency as they lord their wishes over their chattel.
Therefore, nobody (not you, not the PTA, not the school, not the Congress) has any right to tell me what is good for my child.
I think you have your child confused with your car. The sad fact is that you are probably at the top of any list one would prepare of groups and persons who think they know what is good for children and don't.
Call it what you want; you ain't brainwashing my child with your bull.
I think you've already done an excellent job of that yourself. ObCrypto: Kids who have parents like this should know how to use strong encryption on their PCs. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
participants (6)
-
David Sternlight -
Ernest Hua -
Ernest Hua -
Mark M. -
mpd＠netcom.com -
Troy Denkinger