From: Doug Peterson <fnorky@geocities.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 21:49:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <199707311540.RAA01345@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <33E1E37A.765@geocities.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Anonymous wrote:
> 
> 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?

Agreed.  Every religion and culture has a different set of standards and
values that it's people use to judge others by.  We will always piss off
someone.
 
> 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.

I don't think I have seen this said better anywhere.

-Doug