Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:49:22 PDT From: "Rob Robins" <freebsdlists@hotmail.com> To: lcremeans@erols.com Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Hopkins FBI] Message-ID: <19990428154925.47772.qmail@hotmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yeah......make 2 copies of these and put my name at the top of one. Neill > >On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 08:27:00PM -0600, Allen Campbell wrote: > >[Just so people know, I'm only 21, have no children, but have lived with >younger brothers for years. That said, there are just some feelings I wanna >get out about this.] > >> Terry Lambert wrote: >> > I put the problems today down to children being "protected" from >> > the knowledge that there are consequences to their actions. >> > >> > It used to be that if your child misbehaved at school, the child >> > would be sent to the principal's office and, if necessary, given >> > negative reinforcement for the misbehaviour by the principal as >> > a proxy for the absent parent. >> > >> > Thus even if the parent failed to teach the child that there were >> > consequences to ones actions, the school protected society at large >> > by making it clear that the parents were not representative of the >> > arger society, and that the larger society was where the child would >> > be living, at least part time, and theat they better learn the rules >> > which members of the society are expected to follow. >> > >> > This was our social "safety net"; now if a parent spanks the >> > child, the child can get the parent arrested, and schools are >> > permitted the same leeway as a British Bobby -- namely, they can >> > yell "Stop, or I shall yell 'stop' again!". >> >> Could it really be this simple? I have to point out that discipline >> applied by a lout only breeds resentment. Authority must be worthy of >> respect before punishment of any sort, martial or otherwise, can result >> in positive behavioral change. I submit that the typical divorcee >> boomer parent has no one fooled, most especially the kids. Living at >> work to earn a Beamer while Nintendo baby sits the live-in 'Goth' does >> not, at some reserved point in time, give way to wholesome and >> respectful relations. > >I feel the same way about this...what people seem to imagine when they hear >"spanking" means having the living hell beaten out of little Johnnie or >Katie with "the buckle in the belt" by an incoherently angry (preferably >piss-drunk) dad. Personally, if and when I have kids, I would not "spank" >them...maybe a slap on the wrist if necessary, but nothing really severe. >For the other point -- absent parents -- it seems like there's a whole >common thread in society, not just parenting, that needs to be addressed. > >The US, as a general whole, is unbelievably shallow. The key word is >"convenience" -- people are used to doing things the quick and easy way, >rather than taking the time and "slaving" over it. Look at the proliferation >of things that are "quick and easy": we have convenience foods and fast >food, convenience stores, FedEx, the Internet itself...and the list goes on >and on. It also comes with a strong dollop of "you have to conform to this >or else" -- non-believers get beaten up, picked on, ridiculed, even killed. > >One of these things is the way we react when a tragedy like this occurs. >When something happens that 1) is horrible 2) we couldn't control 3) >involves actual people with weapons instead of a machine that failed, people >tend to deny that something is wrong (it'd upset their convenient culture) >and look for the "quick and easy" way out -- and in our culture, the >convenient way is to find a scapegoat and either sue it or legislate it out >of existence. In the end, that ends up benefiting the lawyers or the >Congresspeople and police more than it does anyone else. Kids that fit the >"description", defend the shooters in any way, or anything else considered >"dangerous" are harassed for no good reason other than to satisfy the need >for this placement of blame, and to "kill the wabbit!" as it were. > >Also, consider the fact that, in a lot of school environments, if you're not >beautiful, mindless, and staunchly loyal to school spirit, you become a >non-believer, an outcast. I remember hating the show "saved by the bell" and >just about every other high-school comedy because it put forth this image >that the Beautiful People always get whatever they want, and the "geeks", >"nerds", and "weirdoes" get laughed at and slammed into lockers. Part of >this was because my school experience wasn't like that; I was hardly one of >the jocks (I never did like sports), but I had people who respected me, at >least, that were jocks and SCA people and such. Of course, it's not the same >for everyone. And the hell of it is, when the Beautiful People kick some >"non-believer's" ass, a lot of times the school authorities look the other >way, write the person off as a "troublemaker" and never tell the parents >until it's far too late. > >> > My sister is a "hands off" parent; the most frequent question she >> > voices in response to compaints by other parents about one of my >> > nephews is "but what could I do?". She won't accept the answer >> > "spank him when he exhibits socially unacceptable behaviour". My >> > nephew wears gang paraphenalia, which makes sense, since he is one >> > of the, to be politically correct, "peer group leaders" at his school. >> > >> > With no adult enforcement of acceptable behaviour, I can only hope >> > he lives long enough to attend and then graduate high school and >> > join the Marines, since no one else is permitted (by my sister) to >> > teach him self discipline. >> > >> > I find it surprising that people who have to think in statements >> > like "if A then B" have such a hard time internalizing the idea of >> > action and reaction. >> > >> > In my experience, most people who exhibit socially acceptable >> > behaviour do so for fear of the consequences, not because people >> > are inherently nice creatures at some genetic level. >> >> I think this notion needs to be applied to the parents of the 'Trench >> Coat Mafia' generation. If these boomers can't be expected to nurture >> and discipline their spawn such that they mature into something >> worthwhile, then perhaps we must codify criminal liability into >> parenthood. Fear of the consequences of their children's actions might >> mitigate some of this if not lead to some measure of improvement, >> assuming the consequences were actually enforced. Unfortunately, the >> current state of parenting suggests this as one imperative which, before >> our time, has not existed. > >I've heard people suggest that people actually get licenses to have >children...a bit extreme, I'd say (you can't control sex and reproduction >THAT easily), but I'd definitely say a good parenting class is a MUST for >anyone expecting a child. Maybe with refresher courses for each subsequent. >I don't know about criminal responsibility, though...there are already >negligence laws on the books, but they only seem to come into play when >you more or less abandon a child. > > >> Thanks for moving this thread to -chat from wherever it came. I really >> needed to experience some thoughtful and rational opinions on this. I >> live about 60 miles North of Columbine in Fort Collins, Colorado. >> Naturally, a great deal of informal discussion is taking place amongst >> my neighbors and co-workers. I've been forced to avoid most of it; the >> level of ignorance and self-deception is not tolerable. > >*sigh* indeed...I've not heard much about it from others except on IRC (not >#freebsd, but #watertower on WTnet, which is where pretty much all of my >longterm IRC buddies are), but every time I turn on the radio, it's >"Congress is searching for answers to the Littleton tragedy"...more denial. >They want the "quick and easy" way out, a "anti-sorrow" pill that'll make it >all go away. I've got news for Congress...Homie don't play that. > >The best "answer" lies with the parents. Parents need to *parent* their >children, talk to them, find out what's going on in their minds. The parents >of the Littleton shooters had no CLUE what was happening, and the kids had >been planning this for a whole year. :/ No amount of pointing fingers, suing >people, or enacting new laws will make this go away...there will always be >bad apples, and as I said before, more lawsuits and laws help no one but the >lawyers and the police. Of course, this is highly "inconvenient", so >people'd rather keep pointing fingers and fighting over it. > >As for the bigger picture, our society as a whole is a big problem. As I >said before, it's the whole thing with laziness, conformity and greed. We've >become a nation of whiny, self-important, bleating sheep, to put it bluntly. >No one wants to *do* anything because it's "too hard" or "doesn't fit into >my busy schedule" or "costs way too much, I'd rather do sheepy stuff with >the money instead. now where's that 42-inch big-screen home theater at?". >We've dropped from world's best in math and science to rock-bottom in the >past 30 years. Voter turnout for polls is at an all-time low. We only have >two major political parties, when some countries have 5 or even more, and >when someone opens their mouth about a political issue, the chances are very >high it'll be culled directly from the Republican or Democratic agenda sight >unseen. We can't think for ourselves, we let the people that run the media >do it, and then it comes down to money instead of the best interests of the >people. We also can't take any responsibility for our actions -- the way the >President handled the whole Lewinsky debacle is a glaring example of this, >not to mention the OJ trial 4 years ago. > >What we need is more free thought. Don't be afraid to stand up to your boss >(or yourself!) and stay home with your kids when you need to. Read up on >things before you buy them. Go to vote, and if you don't like the candidates >and you're allowed to do it, write one in. Get away from the TV and the >computer and read a good book once in a while. When you watch TV, find >something that makes you think about things rationally, instead of jumping >to conclusions and looking for a neck to choke. > >And don't forget to look at yourself. Everything has a consequence or >side-effect; if you do something with huge consequences, for God's sake, >THINK ABOUT IT beforehand. And if you do something bad, it's not anyone's >fault but your own; to say otherwise is to be a sheep. > >-lee > >-- >+-------------------------------------------------------------------- + >| Lee Cremeans -- Manassas, VA, USA (WakkyMouse on WTnet) | >| lcremeans@erols.com | http://wakky.dyndns.org/~lee | > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990428154925.47772.qmail>