From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 06:10:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
In-Reply-To: <v03007606ae17fd2ce8bd@[192.187.162.15]>
Message-ID: <199607211931.MAA23264@netcom2.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


David Sternlight <SternPutz@Troll.com> spews forth:

 > The above suggests your mind is closed. I'm going to
 > respond once for the benefit of other readers before
 > plonking you. Feel free to e-mail me if you really want a
 > discussion and not just to hear yourself talk.

How many gigs is the legendary SternBot Killfile by now?  Do you
use a RAID array?

 > This is a massive evasion. I referred to librarians'
 > traditional role in managing children's reading.

Librarians have no role to "manage" anyones reading.  They are
there to assist patrons in locating the materials of their
choice. The Library "Bill of Rights" does not specify ANY age
limits for services provided to library patrons.

 > Further, librarians often observe what children are reading
 > and try to gently guide them--mostly informed by the child's
 > tastes but also with a certain "keep them out of hot water"
 > flavor.

Again, librarians have better things to do than to peep over the
shoulders of library patrons.  Even tiny library patrons.

 > We're not talking about "young adults" here. It's been
 > clear from my comments from the beginning that I was
 > talking about young children. Piaget didn't do all that much
 > with teen-agers.

You are the one who mentioned Piaget.  Had you read my original
message accurately, you would have seen that unlimited access to
information was recommended once persons had entered their
teenage years.  There was no suggestion that very young children
should be given access to material they might find disturbing.

 > This has to do with attempted censorship of what adults may
 > read, and is totally off-topic.

No, actually it has to do with attempts by parents and religious
agitators to control what young people may see in a library, like
taking "Playboy" off the periodical rack, for instance, and
requiring it to be signed out from behind the counter by those
over 18.  Such attempts have increased in number in recent years,
and some have actually been successful.

 > More than that, you conceded that the constraints should be
 > tailored to the age of the child (or at least what could be
 > observed about the child's maturity). That was my only point
 > and one with which you at first disagreed. Reread your
 > post--you are really blind to your own prejudices about my
 > posts.

Stating that very young children may require some guidance in
their choice of reading and viewing material is not a statement
that older minors should also be interfered with in this regard.
Your suggestion that this is implied because it is an example of
tailoring material to age, of which the first is also an example,
is a clear case of incorrect abstraction from the general to the
specific.

 >> Parse the sentence again.  What it says is that although
 >> "protecting children" is often the excuse used to limit
 >> older childrens' access to controversial material, the
 >> reality is that it is usually an effort to control their
 >> thinking on certain issues by making sure they have only one
 >> viewpoint, that of their parents.

 > Reread your own sentence (which I note you don't quote). It
 > says what I claim, not your revisionist rewriting above.

The original sentence was...

  "While limiting the "horizons" of persons in their middle to
   late teens is often justified by arguments about
   developmental stages, the truth is that it is simply an
   attempt by their keepers to control how they think and to
   what views, mostly political and social in nature, they are
   exposed."

Seems quite clear to me.

 > As usual with the intellectually bankrupt, calling names
 > such as "Statist" is "the last resort of the scoundrel".

 > Plonk!

Fortunately, there is no need to "Plonk" you David, because the
time required to hit "delete" on your messages is an
infinitesimal fraction of the time you waste writing them, and
like most trained animals, you do occasionally manage to do
something that amuses, even if it is only relieving yourself on
stage. :)

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $