Re: Surf-filter lists

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

agree with most of your points CL, but

>That is another problem, not the Real Problem.  The Real Problem is that
>parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've
>seen is wrong or bad.  They are afraid to teach their children their
>beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that 
>conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is
>a big problem when those children grow away from their parent's influence
>though, and creates bigotry and intolerance. (They don't know why they
>believe what they do, but believe it with fearful vengeance).

as I wrote in the CuD article, it seems pretty darn reasonable to
me to adopt a philosophy in which the younger the kid, the more
that is blocked, and to decrease this blocking to none at all as
they get older. the argument is not, "to block or not to block"
as a lot of black-and-white polarized accounts are portraying it.

I would like to see people stop ranting at parents merely because
they want to block things like sex, violence, pornography, etc.
especially when younger children are involved. I'm amazed at how
often I see this argument, "the problem is not junk on the internet,
the problem is hypersensitive and backward parents who can't 
innoculate their children".

frankly I think
that's what childhood is all about: not being exposed to all the
harsh aspects that grownups call "reality". do we ask that children
work in factories and make their own living? of course not. 
childhood is about *not* being exposed to the full harshness of
reality, about being insulated from it by protective parents. 
it's a very innate and natural instinct for parents to
embrace-- virtually the definition of parenthood. 
admittedly it can become authoritarian, but at root
it's very basic to human nature.