🚀 go-pugleaf

"Keith A. Glass" wrote:
> 
> On 8 Oct 1999 04:36:39 GMT, lraszewski@loyola.edu (L. Ross Raszewski)
> wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 21:04:38 GMT, Keith A. Glass <salgak@erols.com> wrote:
> >>Fine.  As a parent, you watch your kids, and I'll watch mine.  But I'm
> >>really getting tired of the Government, be it Federal, State, or
> >>Local, trying to play parent for me.  ** My Wife and I** will decide
> >>what my children are exposed to, not some Congresscritter, or worse,
> >>some faceless bureaucrat from the Department of Redundancy Department.
> >>. . .
> 
> >You are a rare and vigilent parent, who should well be praised.
> 
> No, I am a **RESPONSIBLE** parent, who knows what his responsibilities
> are. . .
> 
> >Legal protection becomes nessecary only because parents of your sort are
> >rare;
> 
> That is not my problem: that's theirs.  And it's NOT the Government's
> problem to solve. . .
> 
> >most have neither the time nor the resources to fill the parental role well
> 
> Which really means, they shouldn't have bothered to become parents in
> the first place, but then I've always been in favor of the basic
> policy of "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed". . . where by "Stupid", I
> mean that they aren't up to the responsibilities of the job . .

Um, Keith, I would like to point out to you that modern society has
continued to develop an economic squeeze to the point where it's almost
essential that both partners work full-time outside of the home. Not much
time is left for parenting in many families of non-high income. This may in
fact be one of the reasons we're seeing such a boom in home-based businesses
and a more-relaxed zoning policy; there's really not much reason for a woman
to work if, for instance, she has to give up most of her salary to
child-care facilities. If she's winding up with little to show for her work,
AND isn't getting much chance to raise her own kids, she might as well make
just a little less and be able to at least raise her own kids instead of
leaving it up to corporations, the State or some religious organization.

And of course if someone's staying home, there's possibly going to be some
way to create some income, probably it turns out to be more that could have
been retained after the expenses of working outside of the home. But I
digress.

> 
> >While I don't support the specifics of any "government nannying"
> >laws that have been put forward, I do support at the least the spirit that
> >the children should not be disadvantaged because their parents are not
> >doing their duty.
> 
> And why are such children disadvantaged by unsupervised Net access ??

Well... ordinarily they'd be not much more disadvantaged than by
unsupervised TV access. But there's that little thing with the
"mouse-napping" where people are writing meta-tags so that legitimate
search-engine results steer people to XXX pages, etc. Hey, I have nothing
against kids learning early-on about reproduction and sex, but I've run
across some pages via mouse-napping that even I thought were well beyond the
bounds of what I could stomach, I'd hate to think of a kid seeing them.

The ultimate solution is, of course, better supervision. 

> 
> --
> Keith A. Glass, Techno-JOAT at Large
> SysAdmin / Network Engineer / Systems Engineer /
> Assimilated by the Borg
> Saved by the code of the Penguin

-- 
                    "We look through a glass but darkly:
                 What we see is more colored by our beliefs, 
               than what we believe is colored by what we see."