barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (08/27/85)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPENING DISCLAIMER -- I TRIED to mail this, folks, but there are too many systems between myself and the parties in point. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGH. Gary, Charles, between the two of you a cat fight has started. Can't you see that you are BOTH generalizing???? Allow me to step through Charles' latest reposte (if you don't like it, 'n' past, please). > > >> Did you ever read Romeo and Juliet? I'm sure their parents were highly > >> responsible... > > > >Yes, I have read several of Shakespeare's works. But they are, after > >all, fiction, so their conclusions (if any) are not necessarily valid > >in the real world. > But they are not necessarily INVALID [as an English minor I can no longer waltz past this one]. Just as the Bible is based on LIFE, Gary, just as Jesus used little stories (we call them parables) to illustrate his point, the artists draws on Life (his/her experience thereof) to make a statement. Shakespeare is not necessarily a manual of how to live, but the illustrations of human nature ARE, I daresay, valid -- else why do so many of us see Truth in his works? (And don't discount me out of hand, I worked hard for an A+ arguing that point.) Charles: > I'm inferring that you [Gary] will let [your daughter] know you disapprove > [of her becoming sexually active]. Then what? She MIGHT go out and do it > anyway. She wouldn't be the first to have done so against her parents > wishes. Charles has a point, she MIGHT go against her parents wishes. She might not. What I've read of Gary's writings suggest that he won't say, "Don't have sex because I told you not to." [Although he has supported other parents' rights to do so.][The ends justify the means, as it were -- I'm not supporting it, I'm only pointing it out.] He HAS said that he would discuss his ideology of why not (various diseases, risks of pregnancy, etc.). Don't slander his parenting out of hand, Charles (AND others) -- because he's voiced a generality or two does not mean that's his personal style. [Although, may I suggest Gary, next time you be more careful in your choice of examples.] Charles: > Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Make my day. (By the way, I was > hypothesizing. I don't mean to claim your three year old daughter is > actually going to grow up to be a slut.) Strong language, Charles -- the muddied need not sling mud. Charles: > Also, where in the > Bible does it mention birth control (explicitly). I think you'll find > that women are only mentioned when they are being raped, murdered, or > giving birth to a male. Charles, your knowledge of the Bible is limited. There are a great many WONDERFUL women in the Bible who are not being raped, murdered, or birthing males -- in both Testaments. There are Mary and Martha in the New Testament, and Judith and Ruth in the Old. The Bible is a VERY large book -- as you've insisted that Gary do, don't submit something to generalities until you've experienced it. Gary: >But you said that the answers being suggested were "silly" and >"out-dated," implying that the answers you have are better. Charles: > I think they are. Charles, you haven't said anything new. Charles: > On the other hand, teenagers are not interested in philosophy. Gary: >Really? It was a pretty popular subject when I was in school, back >in the dark ages. Charles: > I'm not talking about Socrates, I was talking about morals. Charles, you're generalizing -- I thought morals were a pretty interesting subject when I was a tenager. Charles: > This is just the kind of value-judgments that teenagers hate. Anyway, > who says the advice is faulty? The Bible? Society? These sources mean > NOTHING, to the average teen. NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING. ^^^^^^^ Maybe, maybe not -- I knew a great many 'average' teens who held these sources in high esteem. And you DO contradict yourself in one point -- Society also equates to peer pressure, which you argue means EVERYTHING to teens. Charles: > How about "an inability to veiw sexual congress as a positive > experience?" This "Groin Control" insinuates that sex is bad. Well, > Gary, a lot of people believe that sex is NOT bad. A lot of these people > are teenagers. When did 'Groin Control' say 'Sex is Bad'? To me it means 'Sex should be selective.' [Gary, are we in agreement?] Charles: > Substituting back into your analogy: > Teenager A is only half as informed as Teenager B, and > therefore has to risk pregnancy while Teenager B does not. > Programmer B suggests taking a course in birth control > techniques, to which B attributes her higher safty. > Programmer A says her parents won't let her. To quote the often used phrase -- sad, but too often true. Gary: > >Power through sex existed before Madonna. Charles: > Yeah, but Horatio Alger would have never written a story about it. Yeah, but a great many others did! Madonna isn't necessarily even more vulgar -- read some lesser known Renaissance plays (The Mandrake Root, for example). And, Charles, 'Life is Complex; it has real and imaginary parts', was NOT, I think, a missile slung in your direction -- for it indeed suggests that Gary, too, is victim of the complexity. ['The [wounded] doth protest too much, methinks.'] [And before you start flaming in this direction, I ADMIT that my judgement is colored by imagination -- I call it subjectivity, and haven't yet figured how to get away from it.] --------------------------------------- So what is MY point? My point is, Charles does not know all there is to know about EVERY teenager, although his marks are >alas< high in what a great many are up to. Gary has ideals about parenting in general, and hopes for an ideally rational situation when his own children reach adolescence (good luck, Gary -- what you dream for is not entirely impossible). Now, gentlemen, (I know, I should just 'n' past you), we KNOW you don't agree with one another, and it's exceedingly likely that you NEVER WILL. So if you must bandy about your kosher salamis, etc., could you do it in private? That way, when one or the other is slandered, the rest of us don't need to HEAR IT!!!!! --------------------------------------- Live never to be ashamed if anything you do or say is published around the world -- even if what is published is not true. -- R. Bach --------------------------------------- ___________________ ______________\ ___________ | ______ / . / / o .ooo. ./ /. . o@ooo0 .ooooo. .ooooo. .oooo oo..oo oo...ooo ooo..ooo \ Barb .oo oo oooooo oooooo ooo ooo
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/28/85)
> SIGH. Gary, Charles, between the two of you a cat fight has started. > Can't you see that you are BOTH generalizing? True, and, as I said in my last response to Mr. Forsythe's note, I am dropping it. [on drawing conclusions about life from Romeo and Juliet] > But they are not necessarily INVALID [as an English minor I can no longer > waltz past this one]. Just as the Bible is based on LIFE, Gary, just as > Jesus used little stories (we call them parables) to illustrate his point, > the artists draws on Life (his/her experience thereof) to make a statement. > Shakespeare is not necessarily a manual of how to live, but the illustrations > of human nature ARE, I daresay, valid -- else why do so many of us see Truth > in his works? (And don't discount me out of hand, I worked hard for an A+ > arguing that point.) Oh, I agree with you. But I thought it strange that someone who rejects out of hand quotations from one book (the Bible) would quote Shakespeare. > Charles has a point, she MIGHT go against her parents wishes. She might > not. What I've read of Gary's writings suggest that he won't say, "Don't > have sex because I told you not to." [Although he has supported > other parents' rights to do so.][The ends justify the means, as it > were -- I'm not supporting it, I'm only pointing it out.] Not so much that the ends justifies the means, but that each parent (or pair thereof) has to decide how to raise their children. You should be able to surmise that I might try to persuade other parents that "because I said so" isn't an adequate answer. > [Although, may I suggest Gary, next time you be more careful in > your choice of examples.] I'm not sure what you mean -- the example was chosen by Mr. Forsythe. > When did 'Groin Control' say 'Sex is Bad'? To me it means 'Sex should be > selective.' [Gary, are we in agreement?] Substantially. It also means that I am in control of my body, not the reverse. Blaming one's hormones, or whatever, is a copout. > (good luck, Gary -- what you dream for is not entirely impossible). Thanks for the encouragement. Thanks also for a cool breeze in a usually hot newsgroup. Gary Samuelson