[ SECRET POST #3336 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3336 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #477.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see any intrinsic virtue in that approach.

[(Anonymous)]

Fine, patronise your kid by giving them a heavily edited book that doesn't reflect the author's intentions.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not a moral call. Parents can and should be assessing what media their kids consume regardless, for many reasons. That's why you don't find many moms and dads trying to get their toddler to read War and Peace. It's why you don't buy your teenager Pat the Bunny. Figuring out what material is age and reading level appropriate for your kid is part of good parenting. Isn't that enough of an intrinsic virtue for you?