Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ray From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood posting Message-ID: <11210@rochester.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 09:41:22 EDT Article-I.D.: rocheste.11210 Posted: Tue Aug 27 09:41:22 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 20:54:30 EDT References: <639@ttidcc.UUCP> <10929@rochester.UUCP> Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept. Lines: 147 > > > 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. > Ah, I can see that from your question that you are not yet fully developed in the area of intuitive reasoning. > > 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. > Who said it was too late? YOU, that's who. Again showing a lack of wisdom that comes not easy in one's life, it can't be taught in universities, or obtained through surface thinking. You must always be open to all the facts and lean away from tunnel vision that is bred from inexperience in dealing with all of lifes complexities. > > 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. > Look up ambiguous. > > 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... :-? > Your missing the point. Not surprising. > > 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. > Everyone needs prayers. Thanks. > > 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?) > Ah, analogies, fruit for some, poision for others. > >>> 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? > You seem to have this black and white image of the world. At such and such an age, I'll take the baby doll from my little girl, and tell her all about sex. Substituting dildos for baby dolls would be disasterous. I would start telling her things from the moment she was born. She would have continual guidance in all important areas. I would try to maintain a good example, I would not leave the garage dirty and tell her to clean her room for example. There would be a continual increase of knowledge of the real world in such doses that she would be capable of digesting it. No meat before milk. By the time of puberty or when ever she deemed it time to make decisions, I would expect her decisions to be grounded in wisdom and knowledge. But what is important here is that they would be her decisions, not some punk rock groupsadvocating kinky sex, violence, drugs and so forth. Not some Hugh Hefner type who could easily steal her principles that had been instilled in her since birth. You see, life is not to be taken casually. It is extremely complex with no simple minded black and white answers. Asking at what age a child begins to walk is meaningless. Everyone is different. What's important is that they learn to walk tall, proud, straight, and strong. And the first time some wierdo comes along and says walk like this, I would expect her to walk right over the jerk and keep on going, because she would be proud of her walk. > >>> 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. > Answering your own questions perhaps reflects your fear of the real answers. But seriously, I can't agree with you more that a lot parents are destroying the lives of their children. And society will untimately take the brunt of the errors of parents. What we are seeing in parents could get worse or better. If it gets worse, then more misfits are dumped into the stream of society, whichin turn, turn out more misfits and so on. But may I be so bold in stating that I believe that good parents hold the edge over not so good parents in numbers. And while I believe this is true, then I must also hold to my beliefs that the main responsiblity of raising children must remain in the hands of the parents, not schools, or any other outside organization. And I will attempt to defeat anything that trys to undermine the authority of the parents or to destroy the family unit of America. > "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Bravo, exercise is good for the mind.