"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> Johnny can read playboy.com for all I care. In fact, my guess is that the
> reading of online pornography by minors is a positive force in society.
> Certainly, minors reading Extropians are a positive force in society.
> Therefore, I'm saying we should help Johnny keep his secrets.
>
By throttling ourselves to some moronic notion of what "clean" is? No
thanks.
>
> I remember being a bit nervous about that, since my family was Orthodox Jewish
> (and I wasn't, AND they didn't know) - but that's the sort of thing that can
> probably be explained. You can probably get away with saying: "I'm not
> reading that part," or "I disagree with them about that part," even if it's an
> outright lie. I haven't seen any newspaper articles warning parents about
> their children coming into contact with online atheism.
>
> You're a bit out of touch with Mom Logic, aren't you?
>
> But that's not the real reason - keeping "atheism" out of the subject lines
> would be a major and unusual inconvenience and it really would border on
> Family Correctness, like trying to keep message bodies clean. Keeping the
> subject lines PG-13 is just ordinary netiquette, if you ask me.
If you are suggesting that removing "Gay" or the word "Sex" is ordinary
netiquette then I think you are from another planet. I will not comply.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT