3 ms·

It is about the "liberty" for parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms. This is a perfectly reasonable desire from parents, but removin

by cle 4y ago

It is about the "liberty" for parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms. This is a perfectly reasonable desire from parents, but removing books from libraries is certainly too heavy-handed. Responsible parents monitor and control the information their kids can access--websites, movies, music, etc. I think a more reasonable approach here would be to advocate for a mechanism in libraries to allow parents to review and control what information their own children have access to, but not others'. (If that doesn't already exist?)

morelisp 4y ago
Children have rights.
- cle 4y ago
  I don't think anyone's disputing that.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    If you believe it's reasonable for "parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms" then you are disputing that.
    - cle 4y ago
      Nope. Children have a reduced set of rights, that doesn't mean they have no rights. (I am not going to dispute this further with you unless you want to provide something more than a shallow dismissal.)
      - morelisp 4y ago
        No, I think it's sufficient to see you've staked your position as "children don't have a right to read what they want." People can draw their own conclusions about your character from that.
sofixa 4y ago
> It is about the "liberty" for parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms So religious indoctrination of children, in this case? I don't know why that's considered to be OK. Children should be left alone to choose if they want to be religious and which religion best fits them when they're old enough.
- cle 4y ago
  To some degree, I agree with you. There's a continuum--you can't just leave children completely alone to choose everything, they lack the maturity and ethical decision-making frameworks to do that. On the other extreme, you shouldn't brainwash them so that as they mature, they can't actually make these decisions on their own.
chmod775 4y ago
> Responsible parents monitor and control the information their kids can access--websites, movies, music, etc. Responsible parents teach their children to evaluate whatever they may encounter. Controlling and monitoring neither helps them deal with the real world once they are unsupervised, nor does it work.
- cle 4y ago
  Their ability to deal with the real world develops over time, gradually. Some mature topics just can't be evaluated (yet) by immature children, who lack a sense of self identity, sexuality, etc. to fully understand what they're trying to evaluate. Parents should monitor the challenges presented to their children, ensure that the challenges are level-appropriate, and provide feedback to their kids to help them develop the mental frameworks they need to deal with the real world and its complex decisions. This is an iterative, gradual process.
mcphage 4y ago
> It is about the "liberty" for parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms. No, it’s not. They already have that liberty. This is them trying to take control of the values other parents are instilling in their own children, and attempting to replace them with the group’s values. There’s no liberty in it besides the lie they put into the name.

by cle 4y ago

morelisp 4y ago

Children have rights.

cle 4y ago
I don't think anyone's disputing that.
- morelisp 4y ago
  If you believe it's reasonable for "parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms" then you are disputing that.
  - cle 4y ago
    Nope. Children have a reduced set of rights, that doesn't mean they have no rights. (I am not going to dispute this further with you unless you want to provide something more than a shallow dismissal.)
    - morelisp 4y ago
      No, I think it's sufficient to see you've staked your position as "children don't have a right to read what they want." People can draw their own conclusions about your character from that.

sofixa 4y ago

> It is about the "liberty" for parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms So religious indoctrination of children, in this case? I don't know why that's considered to be OK. Children should be left alone to choose if they want to be religious and which religion best fits them when they're old enough.

cle 4y ago
To some degree, I agree with you. There's a continuum--you can't just leave children completely alone to choose everything, they lack the maturity and ethical decision-making frameworks to do that. On the other extreme, you shouldn't brainwash them so that as they mature, they can't actually make these decisions on their own.

chmod775 4y ago

> Responsible parents monitor and control the information their kids can access--websites, movies, music, etc. Responsible parents teach their children to evaluate whatever they may encounter. Controlling and monitoring neither helps them deal with the real world once they are unsupervised, nor does it work.

cle 4y ago
Their ability to deal with the real world develops over time, gradually. Some mature topics just can't be evaluated (yet) by immature children, who lack a sense of self identity, sexuality, etc. to fully understand what they're trying to evaluate. Parents should monitor the challenges presented to their children, ensure that the challenges are level-appropriate, and provide feedback to their kids to help them develop the mental frameworks they need to deal with the real world and its complex decisions. This is an iterative, gradual process.

mcphage 4y ago

> It is about the "liberty" for parents to instill their values in their children, on their terms. No, it’s not. They already have that liberty. This is them trying to take control of the values other parents are instilling in their own children, and attempting to replace them with the group’s values. There’s no liberty in it besides the lie they put into the name.