Re: Filtering out Queers is OK

David Sternlight (david@SternBot.com) writes:

 > There are many others who have come to similar conclusions
 > about the formation of independent judgement in children,
 > and lots of non-Piaget experiments. Your comments are
 > diversionary and in fact by the end of your post you come to
 > agree with my basic point.

Every doctrine has its followers, and I will admit "Piaget-Speak"
is still quite popular in certain circles, and its buzzwords are
often heard in arguments promoting child inferiority and
dismissing childrens' concerns.

That hardly means I agree with your basic point, which is that
parents should be able to do whatever they want in controlling
their childrens' information sources without their children
having any recourse against them.

 > That is also false in its implications. Librarians are in
 > loco parentis,

This, of course, varies with local statutes, as does the legal
definition of "In Loco Parentis." Generally it applies to
teachers, people hired to care for children, and some relatives,
such as grandparents.  I am not familar with any locale where
librarians are specifically mentioned, and most librarians will
be more than happy to explain to you that a library is not a free
babysitting service, and that they are not caregivers.

 > and most libraries are VERY careful about what materials
 > young children are exposed to and what is more, are
 > responsive to community pressure in the matter since most
 > libraries are community-based.

Most libraries let "young adults" (read anyone who has hit their
teenage years) read pretty much anything they want.  "Parents on
the warpath" have managed to apply pressure in recent years, and
libraries are a bit less free than they used to be, but I think
the American Library Association has done a pretty good job in
standing its ground against agitators and pressure groups.

 > So after trying to refute my point, you come to agree with
 > it and want to shift the issue to the question of at what
 > age....

No - I stated in my original message that young children do need
some reasonable constraints to guard them from exposure to
material which might cause them emotional pain.

This is far different from your assertion that minors (everyone
under 18) should have no access to any information that their
parents do not pre-approve.

 > I'm not competent to assess that nor, I assert, are you; I
 > suggest it varies with the child and it's up to the
 > individual parent to make those subtle distinctions, issue
 > by issue, child by child.

Nothing subtle about it David.  Once young people have passed
through early childhood, the burden of proof is on anyone who
suggests that they should be insulated from social and political
reality to provide a convincing reason why. Parental
capriciousness doesn't qualify.

 > As I parse the above sentence it says limiting is often
 > justified but it might not be.

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.

 > If so, it's up to the parents to figure ou where THEIR kid
 > is on the scale--nobody else has as much time, motivation,
 > or opportunity to observe.

As is usual with Statists, the argument is seen as a debate over
who should be doing the controlling, the notion that everyone
needs to be controlled being a foregone conclusion.

Perhaps it's time to take Perry's pledge. :)

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

At 12:01 AM -0700 7/21/96, Mike Duvos wrote:
>David Sternlight (david@SternBot.com) writes:

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.

>
> > There are many others who have come to similar conclusions
> > about the formation of independent judgement in children,
> > and lots of non-Piaget experiments. Your comments are
> > diversionary and in fact by the end of your post you come to
> > agree with my basic point.
>
>Every doctrine has its followers, and I will admit "Piaget-Speak"
>is still quite popular in certain circles, and its buzzwords are
>often heard in arguments promoting child inferiority and
>dismissing childrens' concerns.

Irrelevant.

>
>That hardly means I agree with your basic point, which is that
>parents should be able to do whatever they want in controlling
>their childrens' information sources without their children
>having any recourse against them.

The job of a parent is exactly that. The "benevolent despotism" begins
totally, when a child is unable to survive physically unaided, and
gradually diminishes as a child achieves increasing independence--to eat,
to walk, to read, to think, to make independent critical judgements.

>
> > That is also false in its implications. Librarians are in
> > loco parentis,
>
>This, of course, varies with local statutes, as does the legal
>definition of "In Loco Parentis." Generally it applies to
>teachers, people hired to care for children, and some relatives,
>such as grandparents.  I am not familar with any locale where
>librarians are specifically mentioned, and most librarians will
>be more than happy to explain to you that a library is not a free
>babysitting service, and that they are not caregivers.

This is a massive evasion. I referred to librarians' traditional role in
managing children's reading. Most libraries (for instance) won't permit
young children in the adult stacks, and many have a children's card that
isn't valid for certain kinds of books. 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.  Big, busy libraries may not be able to do that, but I am forever
grateful for mine in Hartford, Connecticut. Under the gentle guidance of
librarians my intellectual development was stimulated in such a way that
I'm convinced it was one factor in my eventually being able to get into
MIT. And yes, they wouldn't let me into some sections until I was at an age
where they thought I could handle it.

>
> > and most libraries are VERY careful about what materials
> > young children are exposed to and what is more, are
> > responsive to community pressure in the matter since most
> > libraries are community-based.
>
>Most libraries let "young adults" (read anyone who has hit their
>teenage years) read pretty much anything they want.

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.

>  "Parents on
>the warpath" have managed to apply pressure in recent years, and
>libraries are a bit less free than they used to be, but I think
>the American Library Association has done a pretty good job in
>standing its ground against agitators and pressure groups.

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

>
> > So after trying to refute my point, you come to agree with
> > it and want to shift the issue to the question of at what
> > age....
>
>No - I stated in my original message that young children do need
>some reasonable constraints to guard them from exposure to
>material which might cause them emotional pain.

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.

>
>This is far different from your assertion that minors (everyone
>under 18) should have no access to any information that their
>parents do not pre-approve.

I never said that. Please provide evidence that I did.

>
> > I'm not competent to assess that nor, I assert, are you; I
> > suggest it varies with the child and it's up to the
> > individual parent to make those subtle distinctions, issue
> > by issue, child by child.
>
>Nothing subtle about it David.  Once young people have passed
>through early childhood, the burden of proof is on anyone who
>suggests that they should be insulated from social and political
>reality to provide a convincing reason why. Parental
>capriciousness doesn't qualify.

On this we disagree. It is a legitimate disagreement. And "capriciousness"
is a dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.

>
> > As I parse the above sentence it says limiting is often
> > justified but it might not be.
>
>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.

>
> > If so, it's up to the parents to figure ou where THEIR kid
> > is on the scale--nobody else has as much time, motivation,
> > or opportunity to observe.
>
>As is usual with Statists, the argument is seen as a debate over
>who should be doing the controlling, the notion that everyone
>needs to be controlled being a foregone conclusion.

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

Plonk!

David

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.                      $

mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
> 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?

Please don't respond to Steinlight's spam - thank you...

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 11:41 AM -0400 7/21/96, David Sternlight wrote:
> Plonk!

<sigh..>

<Plonk!>, yourself...

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga


-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
                -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
                       for Bart Simpson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> writes:

> At 11:41 AM -0400 7/21/96, David Sternlight wrote:
<spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam>

Please, people, let's not follow up on anything "Dr." David Sternlight posts
to the cypherpunks mailing list, not matter what the provocation.

> Cheers,
> Bob Hettinga
>
>
> -----------------
> Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
> e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
> "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
>                 -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
>                        for Bart Simpson
> The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/
>
>


---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps