Miscellany:Frequently Asked Questions

From ChildWiki, the children's liberation encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This FAQ answers many of the inquiries that frequently are made about ChildWiki.



After reading this of yours, I can now honestly say that I belief ChildWiki is a satirical site. Clearly you are a major troll, to that I say congratulations.[edit]

A site can have some satirical content without being a satirical site. I'm sure that a lot of major newspapers occasionally host a satirical column by some editorialist; that doesn't make those newspapers the equivalent of The Onion. However, unless the whole site is going to be satirical, I think it's appropriate to label satire as such, or at least put it in the right place (e.g. Miscellany space instead of mainspace, on a wiki; or in a newspaper, in the editorial section rather than the news section).

Of course, maybe you belief your site has a purpose that does not necessarily have anything to do with it expressed purpose. Maybe you think you are protecting freedom of speech, or waking people up and forcing them to think?[edit]

We're promoting freedom of speech (and many other freedoms). Basically, there are two main ideas for how to protect children: (1) deprive them of liberty so that they don't harm themselves or enter into relationships in which someone will harm them; or (2) give them as much liberty as possible, so that they can use their resources (and resources others may voluntarily provide them with) to rescue themselves from poverty, aggression, and other problems, if they are able to do so. The whole website is devoted to promoting the second theory.

The idea is that if children (or their parents) make bad decisions, natural selection will take care of that. Also, individual families tend to know better than the government what is best for the child, because they're closer to the child; but the child himself knows best what he likes or doesn't like, and has the most reason to put effort into taking care of himself. So he should be free even of parents' interference, however well-intended, if he doesn't want it. Young people have to be left free to experiment with new ideas rather than being constrained by the old ones. People under a certain age tend to be more open to new ideas, so progress will often come from them.

When you were a child lets say 4 years old and someone told you that in a hollow tree in the garden, a gnome lives there and all the adults around you would agree with that one adult, then what would your beliefs be?[edit]

I would probably believe them. However, I also remember that when I was a kid, and people started asking "Do you still believe in Santa Claus," the fact that they said "still" made me suspect that maybe Santa didn't exist. After all, people don't ask you, "Do you still believe that the sky is blue?" If they did, you might start to wonder what that's all about. Eventually I deduced that Santa couldn't be the one delivering all those presents; no one had to explicitly tell me.

Also, adults can be tricked too into falling for silly ideas. E.g., how many adults get involved in pyramid schemes? Or how many adults believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree? They give a bunch of money to the church because they think God will bless them.

Sometimes adults are tricked into sex, as well. A guy may act like he's open to the idea of marrying a woman, so that he can get her into bed. On the other hand, some women get into those relationships knowing exactly what is going on and what the guy's intention is; and I think some kids do too. Some kids are less naive than some adults. It's not implausible that an adult might say, "Let's do this because it feels good" and they do it and it does indeed feel good; and that's all that matters because nothing bad happens as a direct result. In such instances, why bother to involve the police; what is the point. No harm, no foul.

Why is there a Lizzy the Lezzy, with >200K likes on Facebook, but no Peter the Pedo?[edit]

Because Facebook doesn't allow that content. We agree, it's pretty lame.

Why do people always say that it's unprofessional for a teacher to have sex with a student? At other jobs, if you bang a customer, it's okay. If I work at McDonald's and strike up a convo with someone at the drive-thru and later fuck her, nobody will care. If I go door-to-door selling vinyl windows and some housewife invites me in for sex, no one will care. But if it's a teacher, people make a big deal. I guess they figure, you might give the student some sort of preference. That can happen regardless of sex, though. A teacher might simply like one student more than another. On the other hand, in some classes (e.g. math, science) the criteria of grading are pretty objective (you either get the problems right or you don't), so where is the room for giving a preference?[edit]

Good question.

Don't you just prey on the intellectually weak?[edit]

Children are intellectually weaker in n some ways; not all ways. Ever seen a little kid use an electronic device that his parents couldn't figure out how to operate, or speak the fluent English that his parents haven't learnt despite being in this country for years? Young people tend to be stronger in fluid intelligence.

Women too are weaker in some ways than men, and young women are in some ways likely to have less knowledge, wisdom, etc. than older women; but a lot of men are attracted solely, or almost solely, to young women. It would be ridiculous to assume that such an attraction is only about a desire to take advantage of the weak. But people will readily make that assumption when it comes to children.