|++Everyone's out of town...
||[Nov. 23rd, 2006|02:22 am]
|||||I Will Light You on Fire - Golden Shoulders||]|
I suppose the crux of the issue is deciding whether or not all twelve-year-olds know how to handle themselves just because I did (snark etc). And common sense, accompanied by the usual anecdotal evidence of sexual harassment and exploitation (not to mention the numerous examples of general idiocy on behalf of stupid kids that I'm sure everyone has seen), dictates that no way in hell should kids be allowed on Myspace, Youtube, AIM, computers period, whatever. But I maintain that that should be an individual decision – not something governmentally regulated. Yes, the company can certainly enact various policies deterring participation by minors, but none of them will ever work and no one should truly expect them to. Legal policies, when governmentally instituted, can - if only due to replacing "mom says so" with "it's illegal" or something, which I guess is a Big Deal when you're ten. I think they also breed a form of resentment in that direction that should never, ever be formed, because the kids grow up resenting the policies and thus the system (and of course this sort of thing isn't solely applicable to preadolescents – this is sixteen, seventeen year olds, this is me, being told that something as simple as online congregation is illegal because I'm not responsible enough – but tha's something a little different so we'll ignore it for now). Parents are generally assumed to have a stronger opportunity to analyze and determine whether or not their children are mature enough to handle themselves – not to mention that blanket policies concerning trivial personal liberties (such as this) are just ridiculous period. So then the responsibility falls on the parents, which is essentially – and I know, of course there are exceptions, but still – something never handled properly. You either get the people who shrug all responsibility and then blame the system when they find out that, oh gee, things aren't going the way they like, or parents who are entirely incapable of analyzing when their children are rational human beings and objectify them as a matter of discourse for the sake of maintaining control (that's the other easy way to go). And yes, the latter sometimes does succeed in limiting growth and liberty (and, okay, also stupid decisions) on behalf of the child, but it also indicates a lack of intelligence on behalf of the controlling party that's simple enough to circumnavigate, especially in a situation such as this when the younger generally has such an advantage technologically. We end up with the same problem of a lack of regulation.
So I don't know. I can refute myself over and over, but never come up with anything solid - hence the lengthy, repetitive paragraphs. Anyway, thoughts are welcome.
Re: break - Sleep, half-check. Homework, check. Kafka anthology, check (and a v. good read).
Off to hickland for a DAY AND A HALF UGH UGH UGH I HATE RELATIVES AND MANDATORY FAKE NICENESS AND STUPID TRADITIONS...packing would be smart probably, let's see if I can tune things down to only mildly excruciating.