Information is a powerful tool. Sadly, for most people who know me, I do not believe there is such a thing as too much information, and so my sentences tend to be packed with what some people might call filler
The question of information here is one of understanding. Yes, children should never be simply shielded from "danger" but informed on the ways of avoiding it, and why they should. A "nanny" state would seek to have parents wrap their children in cotton wool throw them into a sensory deprivation tank until they're old enough to vote (only without the life-skills/knowledge/sociopolitical awareness that is required to function as a full human being.
Knowledge, if understood, leads to enlightenment. Only by truly understanding can one achieve enlightenment, and become a Buddha. To actively keep someone in the dark is to stunt their development as a person. You may not have enlightenment in sight as you toddle along the path of life, but it's always better to be walking in sunny part of the road where you can see what's coming at you than to be walking over the dingy, shaded side where you're always stumbling.
I recently did a Dudespaper article on The Truth, and this is a point I didn't get around to covering, now I think about it, in specific terms. But,essentially, this whole thing on understanding the truth of the world is right in there
Education is not the sole responsibility of schools, its primarily down to the parents. Parents should always equip their children for life from the get-go. If you try your best to hide something from a child, hey will eventually find it and be ill-prepared to deal with it. Would you rather be the prime good influence on your children, or would you rather they learn about things from all the many bad influences lurking?
Case in point, how many parents tell children not to accept sweets and lifts from strangers? How many tell them why? I mean, I wouldn't advocate being totally frank with a small child, mind, but it helps to know the consequences of breaking a rule when understanding why the rule exists, IMHO. Just laying down rules without an explanation isn't always helpful. The "Because I said so" attitude is just begging for rebellion right there. And there are some things that a bunch of little revolutionaries should not be striving to achieve...
I guess the main point of the article was about censorship over the internet... right... right... lost my, thingy of wotsit there...
Well, the validity of Dudeism as something worthy of a school education is... I'd say, questionable. Especially in the US, where you have (supposedly) have separation of church and state.
And, to be honest, I object to the description of Dudeism as being down to the teachings of one fictitious character. We're not following The Dude, here, man, we're all trying to be Dudes or revel in our acquired Dudeliness. To place the emphasis on "The Dude" smacks of the strange thing where people place "The Buddha" as the only figure of worth a reverence, despite the fact that The Dude, much like The Buddha, are actually one on of many Dudes/Buddhas/Duddhas and I think it's a bit unfair to pigeonhole Dudeism in that way. There's a lot more in the Dudeism pot (if you'll pardon the pun) than Lebowskiist quotes