From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 23:57:04 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
Message-ID: <199707311540.RAA01345@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



James Love wrote:

>    On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to
>take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. 
>People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the
>basic goal is hardly immoral.  Indeed, many think it is immoral not to
>protect children.

Yes, yes...one man's morality is another's immorality.  Each of them thinks 
of himself as "being in the right" and sees the others as wrong or even 
"evil"  (witness the anti-BoyLover zealotry).  Different subjects but the 
same bullshit.  See the futility of it yet, Jamie?

If parents find pornography objectionable for their children, then they 
must take ultimate responsibility to keep pornography away from their kids. 
 If they are not willing to do this, then they should not have had the 
children in the first place.  It's up to them to take care of their kids. 
Not you, not me, not the government, and not some "voluntary" ratings 
system.

CyberAnalFistFuckingActionMonger