Subject:
|
Re: Excellent article
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:18:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
220 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> My wife and I determine the law in our home.
Why?
> Our attention to our children is not based on the deserving of such, but on
> the necessity of what we believe the children need.
So not only do they have no rights whatever, but you don't even have any
responsibility to them? What if you are wrong about what they need?
> I will not use a psychological manual to determine how much of what is
> needed in a particular circumstance.
Because you reject science as a way to determine and refine our understanding
of the universe? Psychology is an infant science to be certain, but if a
psychologist can collect rigorous data suggesting correlation between treatment
X and outcome Y, what have you got against that?
> I trust myself enough to make that determination myself.
Against all rationale?
> My children will have rights in my home based on my determination of what
> rights children should have.
Which is to say, no rights at all. Because for the concept of rights to mean
anything at all, they must be inalienable. If you have the ability to dole
them out, then they are at best temporary privileges...not rights at all.
> My children will know they are loved no matter what behavoir they display.
Unless you prove through your actions, completely without regard to your words,
that you don't love them.
> However, they will know what behavior I expect from them in public and in
> private. It is my belief that they will use the experiences from their
> youth to guide them in the horrific realities of their impending adulthood.
Horrific realities? I'm glad that we don't live similar lives.
> I determine how prepared they are for adulthood.
While they simultaneously determine the same thing. Only once they decide,
your opinion will no longer matter. At best you might be that silly old man
who they feel a mixture of emotions toward.
> Their training begins as
> early as they are capable. This is the duty that I have assigned to myself.
What if someone assigns similar duties to themselves about your own behavior?
> I don't care if you agree or not.
Me personally, or the world in general? And if that's so, why are you
participating in this?
> I will not stand by and allow a
> government or psychological institution to determine how my creations should
> be molded.
Sure you will. You just don't see how much you have been manipulated by the
establishment. Your conservatism is as much externally directed as is the
liberalisim against which you are railing.
> If you want your children to grow into sexually perverted (based on previous
> posts of yours that I have read), selfish, overindulgent slobs, then by all
> means go for it.
That's the thing though. If you really believed that's what I'm shooting for,
how can you actually assert that I have the right to do that to my kids?
For the record, I _do_ want them to be happy, bright, and self directed. If
those are the concepts that frighten you, perhaps you should look within
yourself for the cause.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean with the concept of a sexual pervert? Do
you mean someone who is comfortable with sexuality generally, or do you mean
something harmful? A sexual perversion is typically (I think) thought of as a
deviant sex act, but includes negative connotations. Deviant simply means
uncommon. So I think that the term is fairly fuzzy and I'm curious what of the
sexual discussions made you uncomfortable.
> I have the utmost confidence that my children will be far
> better prepared to handle adulthood in a nondestructive, intellectual, and
> observant manner.
Based on what?
Chris
(It's a grey and rainy weekend outside, but at least it's sunny on LUGNET!)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Excellent article
|
| I'm not sure if i'm not clarifying myself well enough or if you are simply prodding me. I think I've said all that I need to on this topic, but I'll mull it over for a couple of days just in case. In short, i'm not trying to change your mind, simply (...) (23 years ago, 12-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Excellent article
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snipped everything> You assume too much. Or maybe I just didn't give enough detail on my parenting practices. My wife and I determine the law in our home. I balance the law in our home with (...) (23 years ago, 11-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
