From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:37:59 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
Message-ID: <01I7ABUH1S8C9EDBN7@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tcmay@got.net" 19-JUL-1996 04:37:28.75

>If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away
>from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where
>there views are already basically set.

>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.

>Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic"
>notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from
>filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex."

	State? I'd call it right for private individuals as well. Ultimately,
it's the job of the state, if it has one, to protect the rights of
individuals... including minors. Private individuals can protect those rights
as well, just as we can stop someone from getting mugged by shooting the
mugger.

>(As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual practices others
>practice, so long as I am not forced to either fund or witness their
>practices. And so long as I am free to filter out their practices as I see
>fit, including for my minor children and/or members of my household.)

	Well, as a libertarian the only excuse I can see for parental rights
is parental responsibilities. If something is needed in order to carry out
those responsibilities, then the parent has the right to make those decisions
(unless it's shown that the parent isn't competent to). But I need to see
something before I can say that the parent has that right. It's the same thing
that I need to see before I can say that I'm harming some
environmentalist by driving my car (global warming or whatever nonsense). It's
called proof.

>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).

	Actually, I perfectly well agree with you that schools (especially
the public variety) shouldn't be promoting PC values. (We've got a college at
Rutgers, Livingston, with the avowed purpose of promoting "diversity."
Unsurprisingly, even the administration is beginning to admit it has a
reputation for being, shall we say, scholastically unachieving?) Neither
should they be promoting any other set of values, other than that of "learn."
Parents smart enough to send their kids to such a school will see them
succeed, in a properly meritocratic society; ones sending their kids to schools
where ideology is more important than giving the kids the information they
need to make up their own minds won't see them succeed, overall.

>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).

	Fascinating. So you and I are both opinating from the same amount of
direct knowledge of parenting... and I'm going with better and clearer
memories of being a child and teenager.

>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.

>What do you call ten million AIDS deaths?  You figure it out.

	Well, let's see, it's currently spreading via heterosexual transmission
since the "queers" are the ones who've been smart enough to start using
condoms. (Check out Southeast Asia, for instance. I've looked at studies
(such as from ChristNet) trying to show otherwise; they had so many scientific
flaws that I stopped reading.) Think of it as evolution in action.
	-Allen