NO KIDS ALLOWED!

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.
Post Reply
actiongrl
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:22 pm

Post by actiongrl » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:38 am

And my response is, I don't care where a minor is from, you shouldn't be serving her alcohol, so that's the fault of whoever is serving and the parents who let the kids go out to Burning Man by themselves.

Not the entire city and certainly not the parents and kids who would suffer by turning the event 21+.

User avatar
MikeVDS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
Burning Since: 2006
Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
Contact:

Post by MikeVDS » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:44 am

When their kids sneak out there, they probably get concerned. They probably voice their concerns in their churches and their communities and the local cops probably are involved in those discussions.
I'll gladly bring my kids out there but if I didn't go one year and my kids basically ran away to burningman I'd be concerned too. I think you have to big a huge idiot to think that "sin" they are exposed to is worse than children running free where the parents have no idea. Vehicles, roads, strangers, heat exhaustion, etc pose real tangible threats, not to mention whoever kidnapped their children who had to act as their guardian to get them through the gates. If sin becomes that parents concern, they are irrational. I don't think banning children for the sake of irrational hypothetical people who probably don't exist is a good reason, do you?
[img]http://tikifuckos.org/anisign.gif[/img]

User avatar
Bob
Posts: 6748
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by Bob » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:56 am

For a decade or so the org's theme camp department has asked theme camps to keep adult-type stuff behind closed tent flaps, eg sex acts, heavy petting, and exclude minors. Public sex and such is prohibited in the survival guide, as is serving to minors. The org warns you not to break the law, it says so on the back of the fucking ticket. Hope this helps.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam

User avatar
mo
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: CA

Post by mo » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:19 am

actiongrl wrote:And my response is, I don't care where a minor is from, you shouldn't be serving her alcohol, so that's the fault of whoever is serving and the parents who let the kids go out to Burning Man by themselves.
Exactly. And that is where we are now regarding the alcohol issue.

The cops are bringing in underage decoys (who are probably chosen because they look old for their years), and busting people for serving them a drink.

Please see Overdrive's post earlier in this discussion. It seems that the cops have a deeper agenda.

It's not just alcohol, either. I'm admittedly speculating here, but I suspect that there is a lot that goes on at BRC that the locals don't want their kids exposed to. Local kids are allowed at BRC (by the organizers) and even offered reduced-price tickets. I suspect that there is some tension in the homes in the area about going to Burning Man. If I was a kid, I would want to go so badly. The kids are liable to go, with or without their parent's permission. I was a kid once, and I know how it goes. I remember huge fights with my parents about my wanting to do something that they didn't want me to do. All my friends were doing it. Wah wah wah.

So the kids go. Next thing you know, it's time to take down obscene art (for the sake of the children) and somebody has an $1100 fine for giving a beer to somebody who's 20 and looks like she's 27. Somebody's child is in the Medical facility with alcohol poisoning, and we are discussing this around and around and around. Not only here but in meeting rooms at the county sheriff's office, in local churches in the area, and probably in the inner circles of BMORG.

It seems to me that it's all about trade-offs. What you are willing to trade depends on your agenda. If it is of overriding importance to have kids at the event, then the problems that come with them are worth it. If it is overriding importance that BRC be about unfettered expression and unfettered wildness, then the kids are jamming that agenda.

If BRC starts issuing wrist bands for 21+ attendees, I'm likely to stay home. Wrist bands clash with my tutu.
Mo Betta

User avatar
MikeVDS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
Burning Since: 2006
Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
Contact:

Post by MikeVDS » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:28 am

So what's your point Mo? Burningman makes kids whine to go, so we should protect those parents from their bratty children?

Someone gets a fine because they aren't careful to obey the laws of serving alcohol to minors, and you blame kids for that, instead of the adult who's not watching out for their self?

Wristbands have always been a dumb idea. If someone wants to use them for their bar, fine, but it would never happen across the city, and would still likely not offer any additional legal protection, you still have to ask if they are 21. You seem to have negative thoughts about Burningman just turning into a huge frat party, yet you want to promote a 21+ rule that would help turn it into a huge frat party, is this correct?
[img]http://tikifuckos.org/anisign.gif[/img]

actiongrl
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:22 pm

Post by actiongrl » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:36 am

Mo: if you simply ask an underaged officer her age, she is required by law to admit she is underaged. There's nothing offensive about asking someone who looks under 30 to provide ID, and I think it would be hard to argue that that's an onerous ask.

And nobody under the age of 18 is permitted to attend without a guardian, local or not. As for those between 18-21, a little parental responsibility goes a long way. Would you ban those kids from your own city just because there are bars in it, or would you legislate that they're not allowed in bars and expect parents and bartenders to behave accordingly?

Underaged kids should not be allowed in any camp where booze is actively being served to the public (a bar camp or during happy hour, etc.) -- again, since I'm perfectly willing to keep my kid out of those areas, I see no reason to punish my family and try to keep us out of BRC just because some camps choose to give away alcohol. Is that really a more important "right" (the "right" I guess to serve booze freely without having to stop and ask someone's age) than the right I have to raise my child within my selected community, around many others who also want her there?

User avatar
pandasex
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:32 pm
Location: ohio
Contact:

Post by pandasex » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:43 am

im sorry i just have to throw this in


"Burning Man.....not safe enough for your DOGS!!!!

but bring your kids."




OK

i would hate for something to happen to anyones kids and i would help any child i seen (if the situation came up on the playa). But its the parents choice and its their kids (not mine) so........i just get over the oddness of seeing them there.
I have post playa depression :(

User avatar
MikeVDS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
Burning Since: 2006
Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
Contact:

Post by MikeVDS » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:52 am

"Burning Man.....not safe enough for your DOGS!!!!

but bring your kids."
Kids are different than dogs.

In general...
Kids don't bite people and cause serious injury
Kids don't poop and pee on the ground
Kids aren't stronger and faster than many adults
Kids are treated with a much higher standard, one that should keep them safe on the playa if they have reasonable parents
Those standards include:
Not being left alone.
If a kid is lost people actively help them and are able to being that they can catch children and aren't afraid of being injured by that child.
Kids are thought of as individual humans who get hot, cold, hungry, thirsty, sleepy, while dogs are often not considered in these ways or at least not as frequently.

Sure there are great pet owners who'd be fine and there are bad parents who hurt their children, but in general it's easy to see how pets cause problems where children don't.

Edited: Made it a bit more clear that the "In general..." applied to the following list by formatting it to be right above the list instead of following "Kids are different than dogs."
[img]http://tikifuckos.org/anisign.gif[/img]

User avatar
pandasex
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 12:32 pm
Location: ohio
Contact:

Post by pandasex » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:57 am

Kids don't bite people and cause serious injury
Kids don't poop and pee on the ground


I beg to differ on these.........

and do much worse sometimes.....

but like i said its ultimately not my choice to make on their children. Its just odd logic.
I have post playa depression :(

User avatar
MikeVDS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
Burning Since: 2006
Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
Contact:

Post by MikeVDS » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:04 pm

Kids don't bite people and cause serious injury
Kids don't poop and pee on the ground


I beg to differ on these.........
Please beg all you wish but you're flat out wrong. I know many people who've been seriously injured by dogs and we've all heard the reports of dogs killing people. You known someone who has a serious child bite? I know of minor injuries from child bites, but nothing major, and even those are FAR less common.

Sure kids sometimes poop and pee on the ground, but even a substandard parent doesn't let that happen, and if it it were to happen, it's probably an isolated event, with dogs, that's where they go. When I take my dogs camping that's where they go, and I clean up the poo and can't do anything with the pee. I don't know any kids that there ground is just where they happen to go. Do you? You live in a strange town I suppose.

Note that I edited my above post to make it clear that the "In general..." applied to the list. If you thought my list was an absolute "Kids don't poo on the ground" you're correct to differ, but that wasn't what I wrote or intended to have come across.
[img]http://tikifuckos.org/anisign.gif[/img]

User avatar
dr.placebo
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:03 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Cleu Camp
Location: Volcano, HI
Contact:

Post by dr.placebo » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:19 pm

The dog ban is an interesting case to consider. My understanding is that:

1. It was done reluctantly.

2. It was based on evidence. There was demonstrable harm to some people and to many of the dogs.

Stressed out kids tend to sit and cry. Stressed out dogs tend to run away or bite. The analogy breaks down not because we care about dogs more than kids (or vice versa), but because the consequences of having them (or not having them) on the playa are different.

I'm willing to grant that the LEOs are more likely to insist that sexual behavior be kept private when there are minors present, and that this is one of the costs of allowing minors at the event. I personally think that ignorance hurts more than exposure, but that's a separate issue.

What I would also like to see is that those who prefer to exclude minors recognize the costs involved in that exclusion.

User avatar
Sail Man
Posts: 4523
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:03 am
Burning Since: 2008
Camp Name: Kidsville: Delicious
Location: 20 Minutes into the Future

Re: NO KIDS ALLOWED!

Post by Sail Man » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:31 pm

goathead wrote:
RaineFX wrote:CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED into the BLACK ROCK CITY!!! I've witnessed Poor Children suffering in the Playa Dust an conditions. Its simply Child Neglect and Abuse! Pervs are out there! I'm not saying everyone is a Perv Peeps...but, Reading a rock at the WISHING WELL disturbed me! Yeah do what you want but don't expose a child and take away there innocene!
Fuck You.

I wish more people brought out their kids. While there are some areas of the city they shouldn't visit, "as in MOST CITIES" the way people treat each other and KIDS in the BRC is simple amazing. If it is because of the nudity SO WHAT, I would bet they will grow up better adjusted to people then most other kids. If your use to seeing nudity you realize its no big deal. The art and science, the creativity of the BRC is GREAT.

By the way Kidsville ROCKS.....

Get a life.

Thanks Goathead, I'll have to second that. KV is very proactive at ensuring that no kids get lost, and that the parents are responsible and held accountable for their actions. As a 2nd year citizen of KV, I have to say that we take it upon ourselves to watch out for the younger burners, and I have no problems helping out another parents, whether its watching over their little ones while they go wander off to enjoy "adult" time at the burn, or to help mediate issues in the ball bouncer thingy. We have movies, art cars came by like crazy this year, lessons on pirates, and making sock monkeys among other things.

Yes, parents can be idiots, and not just at the burn. Everywhere! Trust me, I know, and experience it with my job as a Paramedic. Ever fish a 1 yr old outta a snowbank days before x-mas because he wandered off unknowing to the adults jackass!! Well, I have and I can most assure you it wasnt at the burn.

My 6 yr old handles the playa with no problems. He ends up pretty damn dusty but it doesnt faze him 1 bit. He has his own hydration pack, eats the same bit of raviolli that he does at home :lol: and all in all, enjoys his time at the "beach"

So piss off, maybe it's you that dont belong there.
Excuse me Ma'am, your going to feel a small prick.
_______________________________________

Algorithms never survive the first thirty seconds of patient contact

User avatar
Das Bus
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Bullhead City, AZ.

Post by Das Bus » Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:45 pm

mo wrote:
If BM were a 21+ event, there might be less pressure from the locals, via the cops, to reform or keep a lid on things.
I think it would be the opposite. I think it would be a free-for-all for the LEO's as they could then label the event as a rave.
Medicated and Motivated!

User avatar
Kinetik V
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:43 am
Burning Since: 2002
Camp Name: Sanctuary West

Post by Kinetik V » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:41 pm

I still think my ongoing efforts to boot Pershing County's Republican Sheriff Ron Skinner out of office is time and money well spent. Considering his biased enforcement of "community standards" in the past, getting a more open minded person in the office would go a long way towards improving relations between LE and the event. But my $4K+ only gives me the right to say I tried something...it's going to take a deeper collective effort to make an impact. But by DOG it's worth trying!

Also Das Bus is right. One of the key defenses against LE classifying this event as a rave is the presence of families with children, and camps like Kidsville that offer even the most jaded LE veteran with an agenda proof positive that it's more than just a fancy, well funded rave in the desert.

At this point, I think a little background on the history of the Rave Act and it's revisions by Congress would be in order.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/

I'll let that last link chill the discussion a bit, hopefully it will let some people see the big picture again and where this fight is going and why it's worth fighting.
Kinetic V
~~~~~~
I bring order to chaos. And I bring chaos to those who deserve it, wherever that may be.

User avatar
MikeVDS
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:10 pm
Burning Since: 2006
Camp Name: Tiki Fuckos
Location: Tiki Fuckos, Upland CA
Contact:

Post by MikeVDS » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:02 pm

How about a little history and information of the sheriff? Since you gave a lot to oppose him I assume you know something, where I know nothing of the politics of the area. Who opposes him, how close do they get to winning, what's the voter turn-out like...? Is the task achievable and is someone who could win and help protect our communities freedoms running?
[img]http://tikifuckos.org/anisign.gif[/img]

User avatar
Kinetik V
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:43 am
Burning Since: 2002
Camp Name: Sanctuary West

Post by Kinetik V » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:45 pm

MikeVDS wrote:How about a little history and information of the sheriff? Since you gave a lot to oppose him I assume you know something, where I know nothing of the politics of the area. Who opposes him, how close do they get to winning, what's the voter turn-out like...? Is the task achievable and is someone who could win and help protect our communities freedoms running?
Well, when I post these numbers you'll laugh...talk about not getting any bang for the proverbial buck. But it was my Sprint bonus money from dumping stock options before they went underwater and I did a lot of crazy stuff with that money.

Bill Mattingly: 442 votes or 29%
Ron Skinner: 1062 votes or 70%

I'm on my way out the door to go sit on I-25 but you'll want to learn more about the infamous Jiffy Lube incident. There's others who can offer much more info than I can about that...but here's a video clip (1/3) and a link to the ORG's official response and the Piss Clear article as well.


http://www.burningman.com/blackrockcity ... ylube.html
http://www.pissclear.org/PDFArchives/Pi ... t_2002.pdf

I also want to make it well known that the Sheriff is up for re-election in 2010. There's opportunity here to bring about change...not Obama type change but real change that will be effective at a level anyone reading this board and with an interest in this event will be able to benefit from.
Kinetic V
~~~~~~
I bring order to chaos. And I bring chaos to those who deserve it, wherever that may be.

User avatar
Sail Man
Posts: 4523
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:03 am
Burning Since: 2008
Camp Name: Kidsville: Delicious
Location: 20 Minutes into the Future

Post by Sail Man » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:48 pm

goathead wrote:I don't know how many kids wandered by where I was and I would put a set of glasses on them to watch what I was doing. Some of the older ones I even let try to burn a stone. It inspires me to give even more.
I should make it a point to get off my ass and make it down to kids camp and do some work.
:D
Why yes, you should :D Hell yes! You'd have quite the audience I'm sure. Oh, and speaking of kids watching you burn a stone.....

Image

Why, there's a little bugger right there, looks kinda dusty too :D
Excuse me Ma'am, your going to feel a small prick.
_______________________________________

Algorithms never survive the first thirty seconds of patient contact

User avatar
penguin
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:04 pm
Burning Since: 2009
Location: Southwestern High Desert
Contact:

Post by penguin » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:19 pm

mo wrote:A lot of this discussion is about personal choices parents are making regarding bringing their children with them to BRC.

The issue of the local kids going out there is of great importance to this discussion.

It is my understanding that the locals, including the local kids, get reduced-price tickets to the event.

The local law enforcement is personally invested here. Their kids, and their neighbors kids, go out to BRC and do whatever they do there. The cops probably get a lot of feedback from their neighbors about the influence of Burning Man on the local kids.

A visit to BRC is a mind blowing event for sophisticated urbanites. Imagine being a kid from a sparsely populated rural county in NW Nevada and going out to BRC. It might challenge your home paradigm.

I've not had much interaction with the locals, or the cops, but I can pretty easily imagine that there are a lot of people who live in the vicinity of the event who think that Burning Man is sinful and wrong. When their kids sneak out there, they probably get concerned. They probably voice their concerns in their churches and their communities and the local cops probably are involved in those discussions.

If BM were a 21+ event, there might be less pressure from the locals, via the cops, to reform or keep a lid on things.
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here -- the "locals" who I suppose might get reduced price tickets also get a waiver to the 18+ or accompanied by a parent or guardian (if that's the case, then that's wrong)? Or is the problem with the "locals" just the 18-21's going and getting drunk? Obviously making it 21+ wouldn't stop the local 21+ crowd from going (and if Pershing County is so consevative I don't see where that would help much (making it 21+ as they're still locals -- or are they working on closing down Reno too?)).

Some people don't think kids should be there, lets ban kids.

Some people don't think drugs should be there, lets ban drugs.

Some people don't think fire should be there, lets ban fire.

Some people don't think the LEOs should enfore the laws, so let's ban LEO's... hmm, probably would actually be a very BAD thing to try and do... but it does sound interesting...

Kids, no kids or anything else is not going to stop change. I really don't think this discussion actually has anything to do with kids, it's about change. If you really want things to go back to the way they used to be you'd have to cap the attendance at 20 or so and move the "event" back to Baker Beach.

User avatar
theCryptofishist
Posts: 40313
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:28 am
Burning Since: 2017
Location: In Exile

Post by theCryptofishist » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:33 pm

MikeVDS wrote: Kids don't bite people and cause serious injury
Actually, I've always heard that human bites are more serious than dog bites. I wasn't able to confirm this on a short google search, but what I did find does point out to serious possible complications.
Bacterial inoculum of wounds by any mechanism or at any anatomic location deserves special consideration because it is composed of a rich mixture of aerobic and anaerobic oral flora. Human saliva can have as many as 100 million organisms per milliliter, and cultures of human bite wounds are commonly polymicrobial. Aerobes and anaerobes are represented almost equally in cultures.

Several bacterial species commonly found in human bite wounds produce the enzyme beta-lactamase, rendering them resistant to penicillin. Common aerobes isolated include Streptococcus species, Staphylococcus species, Eikenella corrodens, Haemophilus species, and Corynebacterium. Staphylococcus aureus is isolated in up to 30% of infected human bite wounds and is associated with some of the most severe infections, resulting in the highest complication rates. E corrodens, a slow-growing gram-negative bacillus frequently associated with chronic infection and abscess formation, is isolated in 30% of human bite wounds as well. Common anaerobes isolated include Prevotella, Fusobacterium, Bacteroides, and Peptostreptococcus species. Morbidity of human bites is primarily related to infection and its sequelae, leading to permanent functional and/or cosmetic impairment.
...

Approximately 10-18% of human bite wounds develop infection. This substantial infection rate is multifactorial. The bacterial inoculum of a human bite is rich in oral flora, as saliva contains as many as 100 million organisms per milliliter, with as many as 190 different species.
Not that this changes my being in favor of children's attendance, I just don't like using something that so obviously screams "not true!" to me.
The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.
Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

User avatar
goathead
Posts: 5317
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:02 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Location: Where I live is not far from home.

Post by goathead » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:12 pm

Sail Man wrote:
goathead wrote:I don't know how many kids wandered by where I was and I would put a set of glasses on them to watch what I was doing. Some of the older ones I even let try to burn a stone. It inspires me to give even more.
I should make it a point to get off my ass and make it down to kids camp and do some work.
:D
Why yes, you should :D Hell yes! You'd have quite the audience I'm sure. Oh, and speaking of kids watching you burn a stone.....

Image

Why, there's a little bugger right there, looks kinda dusty too :D
That was a lot of fun.
:D

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:17 pm

dr.placebo wrote:I'm willing to grant that the LEOs are more likely to insist that sexual behavior be kept private when there are minors present, and that this is one of the costs of allowing minors at the event.
and what is sexual behavior? what is sexually explicit material? what constitutes obscenity? no one can define those or understand thier enforcement, not even the ones enforcing it - its not something simple as 'sexual intercourse.'
What I would also like to see is that those who prefer to exclude minors recognize the costs involved in that exclusion.
interesting to add "without invalidating them" because most cant do that.

- loss of being a fully open event
- sucks for the kids, and would be a valuable life and educational experience

User avatar
Ugly Dougly
Posts: 17164
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:31 am
Burning Since: 1996
Location: เชียงใหม่
Contact:

Post by Ugly Dougly » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:26 am

Sex acts in public are not normally accepted most places. Is this the Exotic Erotic Ball?

User avatar
ygmir
Posts: 29378
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:36 pm
Burning Since: 2017
Camp Name: qqqq
Location: nevada county

Post by ygmir » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:38 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:Sex acts in public are not normally accepted most places. Is this the Exotic Erotic Ball?
for some it'd be easier to have public sex...........

if the gendarmes aren't looking your way during that 30 seconds of bliss, your safe, Dougly........
YGMIR

Unabashed Nordic
Pagan

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:25 am

Ugly Dougly wrote:Sex acts in public are not normally accepted most places. Is this the Exotic Erotic Ball?
obviously not a serious question, but either i dont completely get your point or you dont get mine. we're not just talking sex acts here - nudity, obscenity, performance art, art installations...

User avatar
dr.placebo
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:03 pm
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Cleu Camp
Location: Volcano, HI
Contact:

Post by dr.placebo » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:05 pm

spectabillis wrote:and what is sexual behavior? what is sexually explicit material? what constitutes obscenity? no one can define those or understand thier enforcement, not even the ones enforcing it - its not something simple as 'sexual intercourse.'
Everyone who thinks about permissible sexual behavior struggles with the definition. Cops have a fairly wide latitude to give warnings or bring charges, but it is one of those areas of the law with huge margins, and relatively few successful prosecutions. I'd note that there are very few citations or arrests at Burning Man for lewd behavior (or similar charges based on sexual behavior). Even the celebrated Jiffy Lube case was resolved without an arrest (as far as I know).

I would say that the main danger is excessive self-censorship. Now we have to assign a cost to the self-censorship, and add it to the cost of allowing minors. Then we have to assign a cost to excluding minors. It is in the assignation of costs where we get into our main difficulty, because we clearly (based on this board alone) have widely divergent estimates of the costs involved.

Mostly I'd like for everyone involved to recognize the costs and try to come to terms with arriving at a good balance. And I'd like for the cost estimates to be based, as much as possible, on objective evidence. I am quite accustomed to not getting everything that I'd like.

spectabillis
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:07 pm
Burning Since: 2020
Location: black rock city

Post by spectabillis » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:30 pm

not sure costs can be validated - people have found its much easier to shoot holes in boats than floating them.
... one of those areas of the law with huge margins, and relatively few successful prosecutions. I'd note that there are very few citations or arrests at Burning Man for lewd behavior (or similar charges based on sexual behavior)...
i wish leal would release the info to whats targeted. but prosecutions dont matter in the short term to leo's when creating public attention. issuing citations without convictions only causes law enforcement orgs risk in the long term, they can abuse things for at least a few years because its only a week if issued citations. class action lawsuits and complaints need a strong enough pattern to be established for the courts and oversight groups to take it seriously - unless the org itself is willing to push that fight, and they are not.

Penguin Fromantartica
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Penguin Fromantartica » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:24 am

I brought my 19 year old son (who is drinking age at home) and my daughter who is almost 16. A friend brought her 14 year old son.

My kids had a great time and had their own burns. I allowed them their freedom and they were responsible.

The 14 year old had trouble getting away from his mother. He didn't manage to get out and make any friends since we were at an adult camp. It's a lot safer if a teen is out with other people rather than totally alone. His mother freaked when he wasn't at camp at night when we got there. She went to the Rangers to report him missing and because he was under 18 it had to be reported to the police. When a child is missing at BRC and they are under 18 then a really horrible thing happens. One that I think parents should be very aware of since it has tremendous impact. The gate closes until the police confirm that the child has been found. In this case he showed up within 20 minutes and the whole thing was cleared up within the hour but still I'm really glad it wasn't my kid that caused the gate to be shut.

I think younger kids that are camped in Kidsville would be fine. Packs of kids going out during the daytime is fine. Kids that irritate me - not so fine but that's true in the default world too.

I don't want the responsibility of looking after friends of my teens although now a lot of their friends want to come. I was worried when my daughter was out until 4 am but she wasn't alone. This was our first year. I wasn't going to take her but she decided to come two weeks before.

I think it would be a shame if people couldn't bring their kids if they wanted to. There was a great deal of BRC that was fine for kids.
Penguin Fromantartica

epic
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 12:14 am
Location: earth
Contact:

police are allowed to lie

Post by epic » Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:27 am

actiongrrrl, what law are you quoting? Can you cite the exact text, section and source? Undercover police are allowed to lie. You can ask an undercover officer/informant "are you a cop" they can say no and still bust you. So what law says that an undercover snitch/plant/decoy has to admit their real age or the bust is null and void?
If every police/LEO operative was honest there would be far less arrests, convictions and citations, which is not the case.
Yes, carrying ID on the playa is onerous, for one thing I don't want to lose my license and never find it again and have to drive 12 hours without it. We have to carry enough shit around the playa as it is. What next, credit card and passport?
In the default world EVERY place that sells alcohol cards everyone who looks under 40.
The ONLY benefit to allowing children at BM is for parents that insist on bringing them along because they are selfish. The kids would just as soon be at home with their friends/other family. For the other 90% of us its a liability and a hindrance.

"Mo: if you simply ask an underaged officer her age, she is required by law to admit she is underaged. There's nothing offensive about asking someone who looks under 30 to provide ID, and I think it would be hard to argue that that's an onerous ask."

epic
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 12:14 am
Location: earth
Contact:

actiongrl says its only OK to take babies only in RVs

Post by epic » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:01 am

Actiongrls justifications of subjecting her baby to BM duststorms by comparing it to nomadic desert culture is beyond laughable. So you have a Bedouin baby that was in an RV? Kids have a RIGHT to be there-but only in an RV? Actually kids are prevented from being there without an adult so they don't have the right to be there. The parents that drag their kids along are interested in their own enjoyment, not the children's. Letting your baby choke on dust, dehydrate and roast in heat because people in poor countries are forced to do that is child abuse and the mark of an unfit parent.

"I took my infant and I'd do it again. She spent a very large part of her day inside the RV, because in case you didn't know, babies mostly sleep. When she was awake, she wasn't taken very far from camp, in case of dust storms kicking up. If we did happen to be in another camp when weather happened, there was always a sheltered place to duck into. Same was true this year.

I wouldn't personally take my very young child or baby without an RV, but infants are in fact born in desert cultures and other harsh climates, every single day, and people find a way to protect them from the elements.

I also really don't see any substantiation of the claim that they're negatively impacting creativity or expression, nor that the environment or culture is bad for them. Just claims; no factual evidence. Maybe, just maybe, the complainers need to remember that children are people, not just small adjuncts to their parents, and that our kids have as much right to be there as you do."

User avatar
Sensei
Posts: 2878
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Sensei » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:25 pm

Epic, you are beyond laughable, you're an asshole who has absolutely zero idea what the fuck he's talking about.

Please continue to lecture us on parenting though, we need the laughs.

Post Reply

Return to “Philosophical Center”