🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6js32p$1k2$1@news.net-quest.com>, J.M. Ivler
<ivler@net-quest.com> wrote:

>In ca.politics Don Wilson <scootoy@aol.com> wrote:
>> I'm not a book burner in any way shape or form, but we have to realize
>> something here. 
>
>Yes you are. You have determined, by your moral strandards, what should be
>or should not be on the shelves of a school library. You have stated that
>a book, based on it's words and content, shouldn't be on the library
>shelves, because you wish to protect the children and make sure that they
>only read things that fit your morality.
>
>YOU ARE A BOOK BURNER! Get used to it and learn to live with it.

While I disagree with Mr. Wilson, I disagree with you as well. School
libraries have limited funds, shelf space, etc. Making rules about what
books they will or will not stock is not the same activity as making rules
about what books it is legal to publish or own.

>> While teenagers look and sometimes act adult, they are
>> far from it. As a matter of fact, a young person doesn't mature before
>> they actually get into their 30s.
>
>I'm sure that Mr. Filo, Mr Yang, Mr. Anderrsen, and even old Mr. Dell and
>Mr. Gates will be glad to know that you don't think them mature (or didn't
>think them mature when they had their first million or so and were
>operating multi-million dollar companies).

I don't know if these people were mature in their twenties or not, but
making their first million, or even operating a large company, doesn't
answer the question. In the sense relevant to this discussion, I think
there is pretty good evidence that the current chief executive of the U.S.
is immature.

>There was a time when children were getting married and starting their
>families when they were all of 12.

I don't think so--could you cite evidence? Age of menarch has been rising
for the past century or two, due to improved nutrition, so I doubt that if
you go back before that very many twelve year old girls were fertile. Of
course, there were sometimes early marriages, especially in royal
families, that were really more like binding engagements--the couple were
not living together nor producing children.

> There was a time when a 40 year old was
>a grandfather, and maybe even a great-grandfather. There was a time when
>50 was "real old" and no one lived that long.

I do not know of any such time in recorded history. The percentage of the
population that made it to fifty, sixty, seventy, ... was lower in the
past, but the age of the oldest people does not seem to have changed much.

.. In the time of you holy
>book, 2000 years ago, 40 was an age that was not attainable by most
>people and 50 was amazing.

Again, do you have evidence for that claim? You might want to check age at
death for Roman emperors, since that is likely to be recorded.

>Teen birth rates today have little to do with "children growing up too
>fast" and more to do with socio-economics.

Perhaps you could explain what you believe the correct explanation is for
current illegitimacy rates--which are phenomenally high by historical
standards. You write as though the answer is obvious.
-- 
David Friedman
DDFr@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
"No man is secure in his life, liberty or property 
while the legislature is in session"