Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 02, 2004 01:03 AM
"Nonsense!"
For nonsense, you sure take a lot of time to refute it, i'd expect nonsense, like (1+1=5), to be refuted quickly.
"Do you let your child drink alcoholic beverages? Why not? By your rules, as soon as they express an interest in whiskey or beer, you ought to give them some because otherwise you are not treating them as a person."
You mean like in France where the levels of teenage drinking are a fraction of the levels in the United States? Sounds like a good idea, thanks for suggesting it.
"When you 10 year old states that they would like to drive the car, would you just hand them the keys?"
There seems to be a difference between giving child information and given them permission to do something. Information is rarely, if ever, harmful. Driving can be: thus the restriction(s) on it.
"...every child is very different in their ability to handle sexual (or any other) information."
What do you mean 'handle'. I don't think anyone is advocating you show them what sex is yourself. However if they ask, or want to find out via the internet then it is better to let them find out at their *own* pace rather then what you think their pace should be. Unless you are psychic, I think they know what they are interested in and what questions they want answered.
" You state, "If any harm does exist it pales in comparison with the harm that comes from restrictions on free access to information." So, you would not restrict free access to me if I wanted to come tell your kids about the benefits of racial discrimination or some other message you disagree with? "
The above is another large fallcy with your thinking, you should realize filters are passive. Unless your child wants to visit hate sites then they won't see them. If they do see them then they should be able to be comfortable enough to talk to you about it instead of 'no, im not discussing that until you are older'.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:The True Answer.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 02, 2004 01:03 AMFor nonsense, you sure take a lot of time to refute it, i'd expect nonsense, like (1+1=5), to be refuted quickly.
"Do you let your child drink alcoholic beverages? Why not? By your rules, as soon as they express an interest in whiskey or beer, you ought to give them some because otherwise you are not treating them as a person."
You mean like in France where the levels of teenage drinking are a fraction of the levels in the United States? Sounds like a good idea, thanks for suggesting it.
"When you 10 year old states that they would like to drive the car, would you just hand them the keys?"
There seems to be a difference between giving child information and given them permission to do something. Information is rarely, if ever, harmful. Driving can be: thus the restriction(s) on it.
"...every child is very different in their ability to handle sexual (or any other) information."
What do you mean 'handle'. I don't think anyone is advocating you show them what sex is yourself. However if they ask, or want to find out via the internet then it is better to let them find out at their *own* pace rather then what you think their pace should be. Unless you are psychic, I think they know what they are interested in and what questions they want answered.
" You state, "If any harm does exist it pales in comparison with the harm that comes from restrictions on free access to information." So, you would not restrict free access to me if I wanted to come tell your kids about the benefits of racial discrimination or some other message you disagree with? "
The above is another large fallcy with your thinking, you should realize filters are passive. Unless your child wants to visit hate sites then they won't see them. If they do see them then they should be able to be comfortable enough to talk to you about it instead of 'no, im not discussing that until you are older'.
#