Re: ​ Re: Threat Model: Parents

[Softy]

I think looking for a "personal police" is missing the point.

When I was a child, and "misbehaved" ... [[[ do we even agree children
do??  If not ... well, happily I'm too old to ever have to live around your
children ]]] ... when he would scold me, often he would say "I don't like
being the policeman"
His point was until I (as a growing child) developed my own sense of what
is right/wrong, he would happily provide that guidance for me -- which, as
a parent, is his obligation/prerogative/joy.

As is being done - exploding this Child Supervision thread into the
perennial "Nanny State" argument does have one merit.  If an individual
fails to adhere to guidelines of their Society, they are punished.  That is
what Society is for.  The Nanny State advocates would like to see members
of Society be given greater guidance by the State so as to avoid those
excursions of acceptability.  The detractors believe everyone has the same
intuited/divinely inspired ability to adhere to Society's laws on their
own.  Both miss the others point, as has been done in this thread.  That
is, all people up to a certain age must have guidance and after a certain
age; must have the chance not to have that guidance.  With an appropriate
period of transition.

Quick question for those claiming "let the child alone, she'll be happier
on the Internet without muddling parents."  ... do you have dependents?
you taught to drive?  by giving them the car keys and then going on
vacation?  and now they have perfect driving habits?  Which they
miraculously learned on their own: no doubt YouTubing Mario Andretti, and
reading that one wikihow page.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 2282 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150602/163b41ab/attachment-0002.txt>