Mike Duvos writes

Young kids have the same feelings looking at realistic depictions of violence in movies that they would have looking at the real thing. This is true even if they intellectually grasp that what they are viewing never really happened. Many movies we wouldn't think twice about can cause children intense emotional pain.

I will decide what movies my kids see thank you very much. I took Jim to see his little brother being born, and I took them both to see "Total Recall" Are you going to call the cops and charge me with child abuse?

effect of all this is that a parent can take a 6 year old to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and put him in therapy for the rest of

My children are doing just fine. Screw you! -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com

Mile Duvos writes:

Why am I getting the feeling that there are no limits at all here?

Not "no limits," _different limits_. And since we all have different limits for what we want our children to see, we want to make the choices ourselves. (Ironically, James Donald's point about having his son see a live birth is fairly _tame_ in some circles. Here in Santa Cruz, classes of 4th and 5th graders are routinely visited by midwives (or midpersons, I guess) who show them all sorts of things. It's politically correct to show the kids these sorts of things.) (Visiting one friend, his daughter pointed out a large metal bowl containing the afterbirth (of a recent birth). I was not impressed. I'll leave it to you to guess what they were doing with it at home. Should we _raid_ this house? Or should we _mandate_ this behavior? Should pagans and lesbian witches visit publically-mandated classrooms so as to de-program children of their patriarchal, Xtian-centered, homophobic tendencies?) [An answer to this rhetorical question: There's no more reason to centralize and assign schools than there is to centralize and assign food stores. Elminate public funding for education--or go to a voucher system if you must--and let the various schools and their diverse approaches compete for the dollars of the parents. Simple.] This diversity is why it's so important that we not let governments, or even local "communities" dictate what we can see, what we can let our children see, or tell us what we _make_ our children see. A pretty basic idea, I'd say. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May writes:

Mike Duvos, speaking for cretins everywhere, writes:

...

Timothy C. May, speaking for parents everywhere, writes:

Please, Mike, let's not resort to winning arguments with comments such as yours above.

I'm not sure why suggesting that many parents would agree with the views recently expressed by you about controlling their childrens' access to the media is a comment you take offense at, what it has to do with "winning" one way or another, or why you would characterize those having an opposing point of view as cretins.

I think I was reasonably polite in my response to you, even foregoing my intended spoof (along the lines of Christian Fundamentalists demanding the right to speak to the children of Heathens and Jews, a point consistent with your point that parents have no right to stop such sources of outside information).

I wouldn't really have a problem with children hearing the views of Christian Fundamentalists, as long as participation wasn't obligatory, and it wasn't a state-sponsored event. If the children were teens, I would feel quite uncomfortable with the notion of parents having the power to deny them access to such information.

...

Social Darwinism carried to its logical extreme is not a pretty sight, even for one fond of viewing the misfortune of others as "evolution in action."

Personal attacks are not welcome on this list, Mike. Not by me, at least. If you persist, your comments will get no further answer from me.

No personal attack intended. I am a strong supporter of egalitarian societies with strong social safety nets, and think that youth emancipation will likely be the next big civil rights movement in this country. I am also willing to pay high taxes in order to feel secure that all citizen-units are suitably housed, well-fed, and taken care of. This is entirely self-serving on my part, since it cuts down on social unrest and street crime.

My children are not allowed to visit public libraries, as I dislike having them exposed to the collectivist ideas therein. When they have read all the books in our home, preferably twice, then perhaps I will allow them to visit a library. I also school them at home. Perfectly legal.

I spent a large part of my childhood in university libraries and learned a lot more from the books they contained than I ever got out of the decaying public school system. I'm sure I would have been outraged if anyone had ever suggested that such information be forbidden me solely because of my age, or the wishes of my parents. I can only hope that the preceeding was another one of your witty parodies. I've never met a parent before who would forbid their children access to a library.

Anyone who supports censorship of one view or another, who supports forcible intervention in family and group culture, probably will not care for the inevitable implications of strong cryptography.

Au contraire. I view strong crypto as a liberating influence on everyone who is a member of the aforementioned families or groups. strong crypto = absolute personal privacy. I think the transition to an information-based economy will result in a fundamental reorganization of who wields power in our society. In the future, all information will be available to everyone and a 30 year old might have no advantage over a 12 year old in his ability to create wealth. This is certain to effect major alterations to the power balance within families. In times in the historical past, young people began closely associating with adults at a young age and were able to function as adults by the time they reached their early teens. As society became more complex, and a lengthy education was required to do anything useful, childhood was extended and children were disempowered in order to better serve the ever-growing and all-powerful educational cabal. This process has now peaked, and our society is filled with 35 year old college educated children who can't afford to move out of their parents homes. A reversal is iminent, aided by the explosive growth of personal information technology, and public education as we know it is heaving its last dying gasp. All positive signs, IMHO. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $

Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com>

Why do you have such an unhealthy fascination for how others raise their children? I have enough trouble running MY own life without telling people what to do.

I merely wish to spare another generation of kids from 18 years of grief at the hands of self-righteous power-hungry adult authority figures. Not exactly an unreasonable goal.

I know of no one who is such a paragon of perfection that their views may be used as a benchmark by which all child rearing may be judged.

A generally true, but completely irrelevant statement.

I believe in open access to information for children and a far more liberal view of the rights of children than most people have.

Live and let live, I say. I don't want others judging my child rearing, and I have little or no desire to judge theirs. Leave them be unless their idea of discipline for hildren involves The Rack or The Firing Squad.

The first paragraph here, although it sounds nice, is completely obliterated by the second. It like saying "I'm all in favor of rights for Blacks, but of course I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what they can do with their niggers." Or "I'm really against anti-Semitism, but I have no desire to judge anyone elses practices with regard to hiring, housing, club membership, or whether they would want their sister to marry one." Saying you are for childrens' rights on one hand, and then suggesting that those rights should be completely dependent on whomever the specific child happens to win in the parent lottery, is idiotic and useless.

I suspect that when I become a parent, any law that could be used to "cure" the children of fundamentalist christians, Amish, etc, would be applied to mine right off the bat -- after all, I'm a dangerous man.

We're talking about Net access here. How would a law which guaranteed that to all citizens, regardless of age, threaten you? -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $