Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 08:56:28 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, pechter@lakewood.com, softweyr@xmission.com, freebsd-chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199707231556.IAA26405@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199707231530.BAA09715@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jul 24, 97 01:00:49 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith wrote: > > Jonathan M. Bresler stands accused of saying: > > > > once upon a time, their existed the "nuclear family" in a land called > > america. the "nuclear family" consisted of one parent whose primary > > duty was to produce an income that would house and feed the family. > > the other parent's primary duty was to care for the children. > > It is fallacious to claim that this structure, which has stolen the > term "nuclear family" from the actual meaning of the phrase, is > inherently better (or worse, for that matter) than any other caring > structure. okay, substitute different term for "nuclear family". > > What is significant is content. > > Structure is irrelevant, other than that under extreme circumstances > it can limit content. i am not sure what you are calling "Structure" and what you are calling "Content". some structures make certain activities easier while making others more difficult. they is value in a structure that makes "doing the right thing" easier. fortran can be forced to processs strings even though the structure of the language does not help. much easier to process strings in C. to me, structure is valuable as an enabler/facilitator. > > Content in the context of the parenting process comes down to > attitude. The attitude of parents in particular, and of the community > at large. It's not whether you have a "nuclear" family, but whether > the time and effort is put in on both sides of the equation. This > involves both children and parents, and at the moment, the trend is > for both parties to focus on themselves to the exclusion of their > relationships. i dont think its "to the exclusion", but rather the "career", the source of income is the first priority...then the relationships. that is a blight upon the land, or at least a pox upon the houses. > > You can cast blame for the rise of selfishness anywhere you like; I > make no pretension to knowing where this comes from. Make no mistake > though, the "nuclear family" is a simplistic, glib "solution" tailored > to a society that wants to believe that every problem has a simple > answer. Preferably one that lends itself to easy repetition without > actual brain activity. > > > then a blight came upon the land. > > ... > > This is very poetic, but historically naiive in the extreme. > > > liberal or conservative, many of us grew up in the 50's and 60's in > > that style of "nuclear family". > > This is mythical. Many of us have grown up today in "nuclear" > families. Many of our parents and ancestors did not. Trite or not, > consider "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as > bad as it seems". Spare a few seconds considering who benefits from > your concern about the "nuclear" family. its not mythical, it was the rule in the neighborhood i grew up in. when i fell out of tree and broke my arm, a parent was available to take me to the hospital. many, not all, "nannies" dont have driver's licenses or their own automobiles. many dont have powers of attorney to sign the required forms at the hospital. as a child, while walking my dog, the animal bolted after a squirrel that was behind me. i fell head-first onto the pavement unconscious. the neighbors closed the street to traffic and alerted my parents. where it not for the neighbors, i may have lain there till i woke up or someone came along in a car (and stopped in time, or not.) in a neighborhood of "latch-key kids" who will perform these two functions? > > > anyone that does not occassionly long > > for the days before children, when the world was only two people, > > the sun always shone brightly upon the land?) > > Heh. The answer to this one is trivially simple. If you really value > your independance; _don't_have_any_. There are bound to be plenty of > induhviduals around who'll do it for you. 8) ;) i can live with kids, its much easier on my wife and i that we get to live without them once in a while too. > > > > Hey Wes, give us Liberals a break. I must be from the old school. > > > Shell set to nologin hell. What about a hand applied to the rear end. > > > It isn't a Liberal versus conservative thing. It's an "I'm too busy > > > with my pretentious lifestyle to parent" thing. > > Indeed; _having_ the kids is part of the pretension, _looking_after_ > them is too much like hard work. > > Basically; please don't bombard us caring types with your > lightly-browned echo-mode political dribble. If it's suitable for a > ten-second sound bite, it hasn't even considered the problem. > > -- > ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707231556.IAA26405>