Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood posting
Message-ID: <1576@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 12:42:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1576
Posted: Sat Aug 24 12:42:30 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 03:11:09 EDT
References: <639@ttidcc.UUCP> <10929@rochester.UUCP> <1473@pyuxd.UUCP> <11043@rochester.UUCP> <1549@pyuxd.UUCP> <11137@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 127

>>> I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents.  He is
>>> having a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]

>>Where do you see that?  What's non-objective about it?  The fact that it's
>>at odds with your opinion? [ROSEN]

> No.  It is obvious by your over generalization of your attack on parents.

Obviously an attack on SOME parents, specifically parents who give their
children misinformation or none at all, or who teach by edict and not by
example, is an overgeneralization to Ray.  It would only be so if I made the
remark about all parents.  Ray must have taken it to heart that I was talking
about him or something.  Why?

>>The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
>>children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
>>I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age.  I
>>also knew about death camps around the same time.  So did most people in my
>>peer group.  So do most of my friends' kids.  What are you trying to hide
>>from your kids?  And why?  Real information about the real world teaches you
>>to be a realist.  Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
>>That might get them thinking.

> What you appear to be saying is exactly what I am saying.  Give kids real
> information.   WHERE you I and whole heartedly disagree is when!
> You give generalizations but no answers.  Why do you think movies have
> ratings?  Would you read your 2 yr old a nursery rhyme at bed time or the
> life and times of Idi Amin?  

Then what is your point of demarcation?  From your postings, from your
pronouncements that the way to get kids not to have sex is to tell them
not to, that point is obviously far too late.

> I've noticed several references on the net to your habit of putting words
> in other people's mouths.  Your holding true to form.  I never once mentioned
> anything about hiding information from children, I merely stated that it is 
> the rights of parents to give out that information and to decide when.

When you do so too late, you have kept it from them, thus you have attempted
to hide it (they'll get it anway, and probably get it wrong, but ...)
If *I* have a habit of putting words into other people's mouths, it would
seem that you owe me a tutor's fee because you've learned your lessons well.

> You say you knew at an 'early age' blah blah blah. Ambiguous.

So much for my argument.  It was "ambiguous" because Ray says so.  Because
it provides a counterexample to his "in cement" attitudes, it MUST be wrong.

> Again, no
> concrete information, just vague generalizations.  You also knew other 'real
> information' about the same time as 'early age'.  Huh?

Yes, indeed.  I think the Santa Claus example and the death camp example
(both of which were YOURS) are quite concrete.  After all, they came from
your mind, which is set in cement, as you said... :-?

> It is perhaps true that to some kids who insist on having a mind of their own
> and feel 'all grown up' and ready to make important decisions before they
> even know how to properly use toilet paper, it would be nearly imposible to
> make a good parent.

What a horrible thing, insisting on having a mind of their own rather than
listening to you.  God, I hope you never become a parent, and if you already
are I'm tempted to get religion just to pray for your kids.

> I believe from what I've observed of your postings that you fit the above
> description (mild flame intended).

The description of insisting on having a mind of my own?  Why, thank you!
(I know how to use toilet paper, so I guess I don't fit in to the other
criteria for the category.  At what age do YOU deem a child capable of using
toilet paper, anyways?)

>>> To blazes with the petty concern of parents wishing
>>> to buffer their children from the horrors of the real world till their old
>>> enough to understand.

>>Hear, hear!  (Oh, you meant this sarcastically?)  I think your version of
>>"old enough to understand" is roughly equivalent to "too late to understand".
>>Would you delay sex education the same way?  Is puberty "old enough"?
>>No?  Guess what?  You're already five or six years too late!!!

> Again putting words in other people's mouths.  Do your own words and thoughts 
> escape you?  Are you asking me something or telling me something?

I'll ask you what's "old enough to understand".  (In fact, I did!!!)  And I'll
ask what information they would get other than "don't do it" from the likes
of you.  (I did that too.)  Putting words in other people's mouths?  Or
trying to pull teeth to get information?

>>> Someone said, I don't remember who, but I agree whole heartedly, "The way
>>> to destroy a society is to erode its base, which in essence is the family."

>>> I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks,
>>> but I personally believe that this very erosion is going on all around us
>>> all the time right now.  Nothing could make us weaker than 250 million
>>> alienated estranged Americans.

>>The erosion of the family isn't coming from outside, it's coming from
>>within:  from parents who fail to take responsibility for the proper
>>raising of their children to think for themselves and become adults,
>>by being so strict as to restrict independent thought processes, making
>>them dependent on sticking to established conventions rather than seeking
>>their own way.  By sheltering their children from the real world because
>>they think it's best for them, only to find that the kids can't cope once
>>they get out there with real people (and real influences, bad and good).
>>By leaving a television set in charge of the kids as their babysitters,
>>and then wondering where they got all these strange ideas from.

> Perhaps you're living proof.  But I seriously doubt that your situation can
> be representative of the institution of parenting.

That's funny, I had a pretty solid family life.  Are you simply trying to
slander anyone who disagrees with you, Ray, or do you have something to say?
... ... ... I thought not.

>>Life is complex.  It has real and imaginary parts.

> What's important is knowing the difference.  Do you?

Since apparently you ARE a parent, I must ask if you do, too.  I like to
think that I do.  Why don't you delineate to us all what is "imaginary"
about what I said above.  It's apparent that you have some imaginary thoughts
of your own.
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr