Planned Parenthood posting
Adrienne Regard
>Abortion as a birth control method is very much an issue in the discussions
>I have seen on this net.
Depends on your slant, perhaps and how many articles you "n" past. Abortion
is very much an issue. ". . .as a birth control method. . ." I'm not so
sure about.
>Quite a few posters in this group defend abortion as a method of birth
>control.
Define "quite a few". Quite a larger number than a few defend abortion as
a woman's right to her own body and it's functions. Most have stated that
they consider birth control in all it's forms to be of primary importance
to an intelligent woman's life. Most have also stated or implied that
other methods are the smarter way to go, and that they support preventing
unwanted pregnancies at least as strongly as they support a woman's right
to choose abortion. In the _final_ analysis, same thing: abortion = the
control of a birth. On the way to the final analysis, abortion is a
practice that may ensure the woman's fundamental rights, even if never used.
And is recognized as many as a less desirable method than prevention.
>The Planned Parenthood office in our area encourages this form of birth
>control and has discontinued counseling for other methods of control.
Along with numerous others, I've never heard of this myself. I don't go
to Planned Parenthood myself, either, but my sister does. This has not
been her experience. Maybe your local office has blown it's charter and/or
maybe it isn't affiliated with the national Planned Parenthood organiza-
tion. I do question the _intent_ of your comment, (particularly since it
is only hearsay, see below, and you don't exhibit a very reasonable attitude
with respect to the _truth_ of the issue) but then, I stand on the other
side of the fence, so I'm likely to do that, aren't I? (Yes, similarly
my sister's experience is also hearsay -- but I didn't make a bald asser-
tion concerning a national organization that appears to violate that
organization's stated purpose).
>In the second place, my information comes from two women who went
>to PP for birth control advice and were told to go to their own
>doctor. That's good enough for me.
That's not good enough for me (nor, obviously, for numerous others). That
the clinic may not have given them birth control advice may be due to any
number of factors (local regulation, specific charter, economic standing,
health concerns, downright rudeness, etc.). If you care to outline the
factors that they were given for being turned away, I'm sure people will
read them. In their absence, your statement can hardly be considered "good
enough" in that it tells us absolutely zip about the birthcontrol
counselling practices at that local clinic.
>The same information, from other sources, has been printed on this net
>several times. That is also good enough for me.
LOTS of information has been posted on this net from other sources -- that
doesn't make it fact. Blind assertion may be good enough for you, but
it's not good enough for lots of others.
But, hey, you want to bump into walls, that's your business. I won't
legislate against your right to do so.
Adrienne Regard
Ray Frank
> >I have seen on this net.
>
> >control and has discontinued counseling for other methods of control.
>
future. This was reveled to 2000 teen-agers in Washington D C recently.
Upon reading the slogan, one realizes that Planned Parenthood and their
many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
only NO to getting pregnant. Thus abortion is used as birth control.
Planned Parenthood has a $204 million budget of which more than half comes from
the taxpayers. They have become a rich organization. Sort of like the
tobacco industry. The tobacco industry does not acknowlege the health hazards
of tobacco, this would hurt revenues. Similarly, PP does not acknowlege the
health hazards of 10, 11, 12, etc year olds ingaging in sexual relations, this
would hurt revenues and put them out of business where they belong. Oh I
know, they usually counsel the children first, usually for about 5 or 10
minutes before giving them pills and later an abortion when the child naturally
forgets to take one daily, ever try to get a child to remember to take their
vitimins daily.
Why do I keep refering to children. A few years ago I had a conversation with
the head of PP here in Rochester. I said "If a 10 year old came to you for
an abortion would you give her one?", he said "Yes, definitely." And he
said that in no way would he feel obligated to tell her parents.
Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.
But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS who
a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or counselor
telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some pills." This to
the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go ahead and have sex.
How would you feel if someone was secretly giving your child cigarettes and
drugs or alchohol. Suppose there exists Planned Cigarette Habit. OK here we
go, a child walks into their office: "My parents said I was not aloud to smoke
but some of my friend do, they told me I could come here and you would help me.""Well little (boy or girl) you shouldn't really smoke but if you must we have
some very low tar ones that are fairly safe. And if you don't tell your parentswe won't either." "By the way, if you get sick from smoking these, we'll give
you a secret operation that only you and I will know about."
What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally responsible for
making decision about sex and abortions, young minds can be broken for life
by trumatic experiences. The standard argument of PP is that kids are going
to have sex so why not help them not to get pregnant. What PP must realize
is that they are in no way dealing with the problem of teen sex, they are only
fooling around with the symtoms. Unfortunately the morals of society filter
down to our children and the buck stops there. We must educate children about
the harms of early sex, not give them the right to do. PP must stop putting
kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old enough, PP might respond; "well,
kids are going to drive anyway, we're just giving them the cars."
Charles Forsythe
>Planned Parenthood has a new slogan, "Say 'NO' to pregnancy, Say 'YES' to your
>future."
>many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
>only NO to getting pregnant. Thus abortion is used as birth control.
I know I'm an ignorant, hedonistic, pro-lifer, but don't you have to BE
pregnant in order to get an abortion? Just checking - thanks.
>Similarly, PP does not acknowlege the
>health hazards of 10, 11, 12, etc year olds ingaging in sexual relations, this
>would hurt revenues and put them out of business where they belong.
Wow. This is really enlightening! PP a front for kiddy-porn? Who would
have guessed?! Oh by the way, aside from the obvious emotional
difficulties, could you PLEASE post a list of all the adverse effects of
teen-age sex? I want to tell my friends!
>Why do I keep refering to children. A few years ago I had a conversation with
>the head of PP here in Rochester. I said "If a 10 year old came to you for
>an abortion would you give her one?", he said "Yes, definitely." And he
>said that in no way would he feel obligated to tell her parents.
Any doctor who would refuse a legal service to a child should be
deported.
>Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.
Watch what you say about my parents. I mean, I know that I grew up to be
an immoral, murderous, drug-taking, commie, no-good punk with a EE
degree from MIT, but that doesn't mean my parents were irresponsible
when they taught me how to think for myself.
>This to the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go
>ahead and have sex.
(It is, actually. There's something that this man doesn't know about his
parents...)
>What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally responsible for
>making decision about sex and abortions, young minds can be broken for life
>by trumatic experiences.
as well as overprotection. Do you know how many girls walk into abortion
clinics and say "mommy and daddy (God bless them both!) said not to have
sex, but they never mentioned it would get me pregnant!" I hope you
don't have a daughter.
>What PP must realize is that they are in no way dealing with the problem
>of teen sex, they are only fooling around with the symtoms.
Oh I beg you! I can't take the suspense! Tell us HOW to deal with
teen-age sex! How DO you get those little buggers out of beds? How do
you control somebody that well? Oh DO tell!
>We must educate children about the harms of early sex, not give them the
>right to do.
For those out there still listening: PP DOES warns of the dangers of sex
-- and helps people deal with them effectively.
>PP must stop putting kids in the
>drivers seat, they just are not old enough, PP might respond; "well,
>kids are going to drive anyway, we're just giving them the cars."
I get the feeling that you believe erradicating PP will stop teenage
sex. I'd really like to see you back that up.
-Charles
--
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was."
-Rev. Wang Zeep
Ken Rossen
distorted ideas of what Planned Parenthood's function is. Most of these
are reflected in his concluding paragraph.
> What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally
> responsible for making decision about sex and abortions, young minds
> can be broken for life by trumatic experiences.
Why do you believe PP thinks that at all? Of course young minds can be
broken for life by traumatic experiences. I am sure that Planned
Parenthood is aware of that, along with the fact that an unplanned
young-age pregnancy is a traumatic experience.
> The standard argument of PP is that kids are going to have sex so why
> not help them not to get pregnant. What PP must realize is that they
> are in no way dealing with the problem of teen sex, they are only
> fooling around with the symtoms.
I expect that it is closer to the mark to say, "PP's standard argument is
that kids who come to them have already decided to be sexually active, and
it is in the interest of their safety to help them not to get pregnant."
Planned Parenthood is not in the practice of helping children make the
decision whether or not to have sex. Far too many children have already
decided "yes" either in defiance or in the absence of the advice of their
parents and teachers. Planned Parenthood tries to make life safer for
these kids. As to getting to the root of the problem, I doubt they can,
and I think they would if they could. I don't believe, as Ray does, that
they have a hand in making it worse. See below.
Sex with contraception at a young age is safer than pregnancy at a young age,
and abortion at a young age is less fraught with risk (for both mother and
child) than carrying the pregnancy to term. I suspect it is with this in
mind that the PP person Ray spoke to would have avoided calling the
pregnant 10-year-old's parents. If she came to PP and NOT to her parents
it's because she doesn't believe she can turn to her parents. If PP
betrays her fragile trust they cannot act in the interest of her safety
because she will probably cut out and run.
Ray seems to assume much more burden and ability on the part of Planned
Parenthood to change these kids' minds than I believe they have. Earlier
in the article, he writes:
> Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to
> have sex.
I agree that a responsible parent will discourage their child from sexual
activity during childhood and teenage.
> But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS
> who a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or
> counselor telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some
> pills." This to the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go
> ahead and have sex.
Wrong! A child entering Planned Parenthood for contraceptives or abortion
has already decided about sex. I can hardly believe Ray has thought this
through. Planned Parenthood counselors are strangers to these kids. If
the real, established authority figures in their lives have failed to
convince these kids that sex at a young age is a bad idea, why
assume that a Planned Parenthood counselor will succeed? Kids don't come
to Planned Parenthood saying, "Help me decide whether or not I should have
sex." They say, "I need some pills so I won't get pregnant while I'm
having sex," or worse yet, "I've been having sex, and now I'm pregnant."
What is the kid liable to do if the counselor says, "I really don't think
you should be having sex at all, so I won't give you pills," or "I'm
calling your mother immediately, young lady." ... what then?
The wisdom behind many of the proposals concerning parental notification
and the like put forth by the Reagan administration and behind "family bill"
legislation says that the child will stop having sex. But it doesn't seem
to work that way, and the matter doesn't go "back to the family" to be
worked out. Instead the child is left alone without the maturity to make a
good decision, and without the information or protection he/she needs.
"I can't tell my parents, I just can't" is extremely widespread for a
number of unfortunate reasons which PP hasn't the ability to address, and a
child who has made the immature decision to have sex at a young age isn't
likely to turn around and reconsider that decision because no contraception
is available.
> Unfortunately the morals of society filter down to our children and
> the buck stops there. We must educate children about the harms of
> early sex, not give them the right to do.
The idea that decreased availability of contraceptives leads to less
teenage sex is a popular one, as has been the (related) notion that
teaching kids about sex will send them out to try it. Neither of these
notions have been borne out by reality. It's the kids who are in the dark
about sex who get pregnant, and it's the well-informed kids who are more
likely to make the right decisions. Planned Parenthood doesn't give any
more "rights" to kids than they already believe they have.
> PP must stop putting kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old
> enough, PP might respond; "well, kids are going to drive anyway, we're
> just giving them the cars."
They already have the cars. PP is handing out safety belts. Your comment
would be more appropriate if Planned Parenthood were in the practice of
dispensing genitals.
I welcome corrections from someone affiliated with Planned Parenthood as to
their practices. I'd also be interested in evidence that shows that
decreasing the availability of contraceptives, abortions and information is
likely to curb teenage sexual activity. I don't believe it, and Ray seems
to.
--
Ken Rossen ...!{decvax,ihnp4,ima,linus,harvard}!bbncca!krossen
... or ... kro...@bbnccp.ARPA
Ray Frank
>
> I expect that it is closer to the mark to say, "PP's standard argument is
> that kids who come to them have already decided to be sexually active, and
> it is in the interest of their safety to help them not to get pregnant."
>
way or the other. I've known kids who've gone there out of curiosity or at
the advice of their friends. What they received was a ten minute discourse on
perhaps one of the most important decisions of their young lives.
>
> Sex with contraception at a young age is safer than pregnancy at a young age,
> and abortion at a young age is less fraught with risk (for both mother and
> child) than carrying the pregnancy to term. I suspect it is with this in
>
No sex is even safer. Too often this is considered an imposible alternative.
Groin control works if you try it.
>
>> But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS
>> who a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or
>> counselor telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some
>> pills." This to the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go
>> ahead and have sex.
>
> Wrong! A child entering Planned Parenthood for contraceptives or abortion
> has already decided about sex. I can hardly believe Ray has thought this
> through. Planned Parenthood counselors are strangers to these kids. If
> the real, established authority figures in their lives have failed to
> convince these kids that sex at a young age is a bad idea, why
> assume that a Planned Parenthood counselor will succeed? Kids don't come
> to Planned Parenthood saying, "Help me decide whether or not I should have
> sex." They say, "I need some pills so I won't get pregnant while I'm
> having sex," or worse yet, "I've been having sex, and now I'm pregnant."
> What is the kid liable to do if the counselor says, "I really don't think
> you should be having sex at all, so I won't give you pills," or "I'm
> calling your mother immediately, young lady." ... what then?
>
Again, you insist on a non-gray area concerning the preconcieved motives of
a child entering PP. Too often they are frightened and confused about the
whole issue of early sexuality and have no real idea about the consequences.
Sure the counselors are strangers to these kids, but so are their teachers in
schools, whom they were taught in advance to respect, obey, and look on as
a source of knowledge and wisdom. This is called respecting your elders.
The parents are the established authority figures but the ideals taught at
home are in a constant state of errosion outside the home. There is a tide of
parental reinforcement real world erosion that must constantly confuse kids.
Too often the scales are tipped through outside interferance, i.e. peer pres-
ure, or even a misguided PP counselor.
I suggest that PP insist that children come back for several counseling sessionsto give impulse reactions a chance to be filtered out. Second thoughts are onlygood if you have a chance to use them.
>
> > PP must stop putting kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old
> > enough, PP might respond; "well, kids are going to drive anyway, we're
> > just giving them the cars."
>
> They already have the cars. PP is handing out safety belts. Your comment
> would be more appropriate if Planned Parenthood were in the practice of
> dispensing genitals.
>
Yes my anology was rather silly here, PP doesn't give out cars, just a sort of
drivers license. PPs' saftey belts don't always prevent accidents either,
expecially if they forget to "buckel up."
Rich Rosen
> the head of PP here in Rochester. I said "If a 10 year old came to you for
> an abortion would you give her one?", he said "Yes, definitely." And he
Great!! (I suppose the author sees something wrong in this. Never mind.)
Children are not the property of their parents (though some might like to
think so) and they are entitled to such rights.
> Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.
Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and
I most certainly question the use of the word) parent. Which is precisely
why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of
parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible
statement "Thou shalt not have sex".
> But here is a respectible organization (on the outside) full of ADULTS who
> a child would naturally look up to like they would a teacher or counselor
> telling them "Well if you must have sex, here, have some pills." This to
> the mind of a child must make it seem really OK to go ahead and have sex.
As opposed to the wishes of the "responsible" parent.
> How would you feel if someone was secretly giving your child cigarettes and
> drugs or alchohol. Suppose there exists Planned Cigarette Habit.
There is. It's called mass media and peer pressure. Cigarette companies
depend on the image provided by these factors, to promote the "adult"-like
(responsible?) image of cigarette smokers.
> What the hell makes PP think that an adolescent is mentally responsible for
> making decision about sex and abortions, young minds can be broken for life
> by trumatic experiences.
This is why the "responsible" parents MUST shield their child from ever having
to make a decision in order to avoid traumatic experiences.
> The standard argument of PP is that kids are going to have sex so why not
> help them not to get pregnant.
And a valid argument it is, unless you're an impositional moralist.
> What PP must realize is that they
> are in no way dealing with the problem of teen sex, they are only
> fooling around with the symtoms. Unfortunately the morals of society filter
> down to our children and the buck stops there.
Equally unfortunately, some of those bad morals are obtained from
"responsible" parents. And a lot of those parents, with the hellfire
attitudes, get ignored by their children who just go in exactly the opposite
direction. Not very effective. Or responsible.
> I don't believe that all kids who go to PP have entirely made the decision one
> way or the other. I've known kids who've gone there out of curiosity or at
> the advice of their friends. What they received was a ten minute discourse on
> perhaps one of the most important decisions of their young lives.
That's certainly a lot longer then the one sentence "Thou shalt not have sex"
brand of sex education that you proposed earlier. I'd say it's an improvement
by one hundred fold.
> Sure the counselors are strangers to these kids, but so are their teachers in
> schools, whom they were taught in advance to respect, obey, and look on as
> a source of knowledge and wisdom. This is called respecting your elders.
This is called a load of crap. Especially when uttered by people who just
expect respect as a given. Respect is earned, my friend. If you give your
kids brimstone lectures about not having sex, do you honestly expect them
to listen to you? You might, if you've trained them to be like sheep.
Many have. Intelligent people respect the words of people that they have
come to know as respectable and reliable sources of information.
> The parents are the established authority figures but the ideals taught at
> home are in a constant state of errosion outside the home. There is a tide of
> parental reinforcement real world erosion that must constantly confuse kids.
Thank god (in some cases). At least they MAY get some real information on
the outside, in those cases. Better to be confused through the addition of
real world information than to know only one side.
> Too often the scales are tipped through outside interferance, i.e. peer pres-
> ure, or even a misguided PP counselor.
But often enough the fire and brimstone parents seem to THINK that they can
tip the scales toward them with their lectures. In most cases they will have
the opposite effect.
>>> PP must stop putting kids in the drivers seat, they just are not old
>>> enough, PP might respond; "well, kids are going to drive anyway, we're
>>> just giving them the cars."
>>They already have the cars. PP is handing out safety belts. Your comment
>>would be more appropriate if Planned Parenthood were in the practice of
>>dispensing genitals.
> Yes my anology was rather silly here, PP doesn't give out cars, just a sort of
> drivers license. PPs' saftey belts don't always prevent accidents either,
> expecially if they forget to "buckel up."
That's why PP teaches them to do just that, instead the nagging "Thou shalt
not..." nonsense.
--
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Vlach
> future. This was reveled to 2000 teen-agers in Washington D C recently.
> Upon reading the slogan, one realizes that Planned Parenthood and their
> many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
> only NO to getting pregnant. Thus abortion is used as birth control.
[Ray Frank]
Whoa! How is there logic in this? If you don't get pregnant, why would
you need an abortion? They distribute birth control. What does this have
to do with abortion? And can't you also say no to pregnancy by saying no
to sex? Why do anti-abortionists keep trying to give PP a bad name, when
they help prevent so many abortions?!?
Marcia Bear
Ray Frank
>
> Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and
> I most certainly question the use of the word) parent. Which is precisely
> why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of
> parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible
> statement "Thou shalt not have sex".
>
I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents. He is having
a great deal of trouble remaining objective.
Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his
parents? Who should they decide not to ignore?
So you want to pass on "real information to kids"? Who are you going to elect
to do this? At what age are they going to receive this information?
Let's see, we can start with Santa Clause. People can come around the home
and convince 3 year olds that Santa doesn't exist. To hell with the joys of
Christmas and the wonderful imagination of a child. How about pictures
graphically depicting death camps during WW2. Why should a child be told that
the the world is a pretty and safe place to be alive. C'mon folks let's here
it for 'real information'. 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.
I will agree that some parents are only that in name alone, and don't deserve
the responsibility of raising kids and perhaps are not capable of properly
raising children. Let's face it, almost anyone can be a parent, it doesn't
take any special education or intelligence, just doing what comes natural
causes parents to exist fortunately or unfortunately depending on how their
children affect society. But on the whole, the responsibility of children
rests on the parents, it has always worked just fine that way. If, as of
late, it is not working out so well, then not only are some parents to blame,
but also the interference outside the home.
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.
Charles Forsythe
>Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his
>parents?
Maybe their parents are assholes, Ray. Some people are -- therefore you
can conclude that some parents are too. Why do you keep beating this
dead horse of kids-listening-to-their-elders? Why? Maybe you grew up and
listened to everything everyone told you, but most kids I know are a
little more independent.
>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.
Case in point:
When I was little, my parents said,"Stay away from the deep end,
until you know how to swim! You might drown!" (Horrid parents!)
My neighbor's parents would get the Ray Seal of Approval. They
told their kids,"Don't go to the deep end! There are monsters
in it!"
I learned to swim early. My neighbors were always afraid of the
water. Hmmmm. At least they never had a chance to drown...
>But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents,
>it has always worked just fine that way.
Oh really? Then how come we have some many messed up kids in this world?
They didn't start out that way -- it can't be their fault. What about
the kids of the strictest parents who get pregnant or into drug habits?
>If, as of late, it is not working out so well, then not only are some
>parents to blame, but also the interference outside the home.
Ray is telling us: PP exists, therefore teenage sexual activity
increases. Had control back to the parents and everything will be "just
fine." I reiterate: If kids didn't need guidance, there wouldn't be a
planned parenthood!
>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."
This idea is deeply buried in Hebrew/Christian tradition. This is not to
say it's wrong a priori, but to point out that it is a cultural
assumption.
Some families work out, others don't. Some families that "do everything
together" are not nearly as close as some families "that never even eat
dinner at the same time." The "back to the family" movement may have
it's good points, but anyone who believes that it will "save America" is
being led by the emotional "standing tall" sensationalism that put
Ronnie in office in the first place (not that his opponents were any
good...)
>I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
>personally believe...
To use a favorite Kenny Arndt expression: this is the credo of the
"willfully stupid."
On a more resonable note -- let's try to steer this argument away from
blatent sensationalism, emotional argument and personal attacks. Ray,
can I see some proof? Can I see some statistics on how planned
parenthood has raised teenage sexual activity? Would you be interested
in seeing some statistics on how it has lowered teenage pregancy? Or
don't you "give a crap?"
Let's get serious here.
--
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"Live on time. Emit no evil.
Wait! I got that backwards!"
-Rev. Wang Zeep
Ray Frank
> >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.
>
> Case in point:
> When I was little, my parents said,"Stay away from the deep end,
> until you know how to swim! You might drown!" (Horrid parents!)
>
> My neighbor's parents would get the Ray Seal of Approval. They
> told their kids,"Don't go to the deep end! There are monsters
> in it!"
>
parents.
>
> >But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents,
> >it has always worked just fine that way.
>
> They didn't start out that way -- it can't be their fault. What about
> the kids of the strictest parents who get pregnant or into drug habits?
>
lunatic acid rock that promotes crazed sex, orgies, drugs, violence, murder,
etc.
Ask the drug dealers who slime around playgrounds giving drugs to 4th graders.
Or ask the adults who do drugs in front of children.
Ask the senile justices on the Supreme Court about the effect of porno shops
on every street corner in just about any neighborhood. Their response:"snoor."
The way things are going Captain Kangaroo is liable to have an 'R' rating in
the murky future.
> Ray is telling us: PP exists, therefore teenage sexual activity
> increases. Had control back to the parents and everything will be "just
> fine." I reiterate: If kids didn't need guidance, there wouldn't be a
> planned parenthood!
>
If kids didn't need guidance, there would't be a need for parents.
> >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."
>
> This idea is deeply buried in Hebrew/Christian tradition. This is not to
> say it's wrong a priori, but to point out that it is a cultural
> assumption.
>
Are you for a moment suggesting that families didn't exist intimately until
the advent of Christianity? That families didn't make up the back bone of
societies? I'm not at all sure what you are trying to saying here.
> Some families work out, others don't. Some families that "do everything
> together" are not nearly as close as some families "that never even eat
> dinner at the same time." The "back to the family" movement may have
> it's good points, but anyone who believes that it will "save America" is
> being led by the emotional "standing tall" sensationalism that put
> Ronnie in office in the first place (not that his opponents were any
> good...)
>
True some families don't work out, so what else is new?
Again you are making some sort of strange inference that if familes are
strangers they will be closer than if they are not strangers. If this is
true than single people with no family who are strangers in a new neighbor-
hood will be welcomed with open arms by the community. Hah. The U.S has
been refered to as the loneliest country in the world with its 20 million or
so people who live alone.
> >I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
> >personally believe...
>
> To use a favorite Kenny Arndt expression: this is the credo of the
> "willfully stupid."
>
I said that to indicate that my position is cast in cement and it is.
Karen Wieckert
>your future. This was reveled to 2000 teen-agers in Washington D C recently.
>Upon reading the slogan, one realizes that Planned Parenthood and their
>many abortion establishments is not actually telling kids to say NO to sex,
>only NO to getting pregnant. Thus abortion is used as birth control.
I assume you mean revealed rather than reveled, although some might want to
revel in non-pregnancy :-).
Actually, this is not strictly true. In the mid-70's, I worked at a Planned
Parenthood center as a peer counselor when I was just a teenager. Each
person, male or female, who came in for help had the option of seeing not
only a Planned Parenthood staffer but also a peer counselor. It is true that
we would talk to each person about the options available for birth control;
the risks, the effectiveness, etc. However, a fair amount of discussion
about the circumstances of the person's life would also be discussed, if the
person wanted to talk. If they were not interested in talking about their
circumstances, it was our obligation to make their decision about an active
sex life as safe as possible and therefore gave them the birth control method
which was safest for them and of their choice. Also, it was better to give
them an option on birth control rather than have them face the trials and
tribulations of abortion later.
If a counselor found that there were other things the person had to deal
with, for instance incest, rape, etc, they were referred to other counseling
agencies for help in addition to the birth control counseling. We found a
number of teenagers would start into the system of help for child abuse,
sexual assault, incest, etc by first coming to Planned Parenthood.
If appropriate to the situation, each counselor also suggested strongly that
the person consult his or her parents about the decision. The law in the
state said that parents had a right to the information if they chose to
investigate after their children's behavior. We also explained the law to
those who came in for counseling.
It was best to keep the person's decisions private, in order for Planned
Parenthood to be non-threatening to young people making very difficult
decisions or in very difficult positions.
>Planned Parenthood has a $204 million budget of which more than half comes
>from the taxpayers. They have become a rich organization. Sort of like the
>tobacco industry. The tobacco industry does not acknowlege the health
>hazards of tobacco, this would hurt revenues. Similarly, PP does not
>acknowlege the health hazards of 10, 11, 12, etc year olds ingaging in
>sexual relations, this would hurt revenues and put them out of business
>where they belong.
First, very little revenue comes in from 10, 11, and 12 year olds. In fact,
they very rarely have the money to pay for their examinations or birth
control. The health risks for these youngsters, both physical and mental,
are definitely acknowledged by Planned Parenthood. That is one of the
reasons why the organization exists in the first place.
>Oh I
>know, they usually counsel the children first, usually for about 5 or 10
>minutes before giving them pills and later an abortion when the child
>naturally forgets to take one daily, ever try to get a child to remember
>to take their vitimins daily.
Actually counseling in some cases lasted for weeks, with the person coming
in repeatedly just to talk. This is often when the true problems would be
revealed.
>Any responsible parent would definitely tell their children not to have sex.
Guess some are just not cutting the mustard...
ka:ren
Rich Rosen
>>Any sensible American child would definitely ignore that "responsible" (and
>>I most certainly question the use of the word) parent. Which is precisely
>>why real information should be passed on to kids, precisely because of
>>parents whose sex education for their child consists of that responsible
>>statement "Thou shalt not have sex".
> I seem to have touched a raw nerve with Rich concering parents. He is having
> a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]
Where do you see that? What's non-objective about it? The fact that it's
at odds with your opinion?
> Why would a sensible American child or any child for that matter ignore his
> parents?
Because the parents are incompetent, or teaching them poorly. Such as parents
who teach hypocrisy to their children as a way of life ("Tell them you're
only two years old."). Some kids are smart enough to realize what dolts their
parents are. Mind you, this surely doesn't apply to all parents. Just to
those who make "responsible" statements like the one Ray made above.
> So you want to pass on "real information to kids"? Who are you going to elect
> to do this? At what age are they going to receive this information?
> Let's see, we can start with Santa Clause. People can come around the home
> and convince 3 year olds that Santa doesn't exist. To hell with the joys of
> Christmas and the wonderful imagination of a child. How about pictures
> graphically depicting death camps during WW2. Why should a child be told that
> the the world is a pretty and safe place to be alive. C'mon folks let's here
> it for 'real information'.
The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age. I
also knew about death camps around the same time. So did most people in my
peer group. So do most of my friends' kids. What are you trying to hide
from your kids? And why? Real information about the real world teaches you
to be a realist. Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
That might get them thinking.
> 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!!!
> I will agree that some parents are only that in name alone, and don't deserve
> the responsibility of raising kids and perhaps are not capable of properly
> raising children. Let's face it, almost anyone can be a parent, it doesn't
> take any special education or intelligence, just doing what comes natural
> causes parents to exist fortunately or unfortunately depending on how their
> children affect society.
Sad but true.
> But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents, it
> has always worked just fine that way. If, as of late, it is not working out
> so well, then not only are some parents to blame, but also the interference
> outside the home.
It hasn't always worked just fine that way for the very reasons you mention.
It's too bad there is no parenting education required before becoming a
parent. If a parent hasn't taught the child how to relate to and understand
the world "outside the home" ("We'll wait till she's old enough to
understand..."), then indeed the parents are very much to "blame", for not
teaching their kids how to cope. That's their job.
> 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,
I can tell.
> 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.
This has nothing to do with abortion, Ray. Offline, please.
--
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Rich Rosen
>>>children from the horrors of the real world till their old enough to
>>Case in point:
>> When I was little, my parents said,"Stay away from the deep end,
>> until you know how to swim! You might drown!" (Horrid parents!)
>>
>> My neighbor's parents would get the Ray Seal of Approval. They
>> told their kids,"Don't go to the deep end! There are monsters
>> in it!" [FORSYTHE]
> Hopefully in either case, no kid drowned. BECAUSE they believed what their
> parents. [RAY]
You didn't listen to a word he said, did you? Why may I ask, did you
leave out the important lines that followed:
>> I learned to swim early. My neighbors were always afraid of the
>> water. Hmmmm. At least they never had a chance to drown...
You don't seem to care at all about the quality of the child's life and of
his/her upbringing. Just the parent's rights to do what they want. Even
if kids grow up afraid of the water. Or uninformed about how to think
for themselves. I think that speaks for itself.
>>>But on the whole, the responsibility of children rests on the parents,
>>>it has always worked just fine that way.
>>Oh really? Then how come we have so many messed up kids in this world?
>>They didn't start out that way -- it can't be their fault. What about
>>the kids of the strictest parents who get pregnant or into drug habits?
> Ask Osie the crazy rock star who eats bats on stage, or all the other crazy
> lunatic acid rock that promotes crazed sex, orgies, drugs, violence, murder,
> etc.
It's clear that this man is concerned about his children's upbringing. He
has made up stories about "acid rock" (there has been no such thing as "acid
rock" for well over a decade), about advocating orgies and murder, to
convince himself that he should be sure to prevent them in any way from
ever hearing any of it. Wanna bet his kids grow up to be metalheads, and
thus great consumers? It's people like you who play right into the hands
of music industry moguls who could care less about sex or drugs, but who
sleep at night secure in knowing that some parents are going to forbid their
kids from listening to that "vile garbage", thus assuring them of making
a mint on it. Congratulations.
> Ask the drug dealers who slime around playgrounds giving drugs to 4th
> graders. Or ask the adults who do drugs in front of children.
Ask the parents why they never bothered to teach their kids how to make their
own judgments about such things, choosing instead to shelter them from the
"real world", thus making them all the more susceptible to the con. It's
called shirking responsibility.
> Ask the senile justices on the Supreme Court about the effect of porno
> shops on every street corner in just about any neighborhood. Their
> response:"snoor."
Since "every street corner in just about any neighborhood" is clearly
a hallucinatory exaggeration, I'll pass on commenting.
>>Ray is telling us: PP exists, therefore teenage sexual activity
>>increases. Had control back to the parents and everything will be "just
>>fine." I reiterate: If kids didn't need guidance, there wouldn't be a
>>planned parenthood!
> If kids didn't need guidance, there would't be a need for parents.
Then why is it that the kids have to go to Planned Parenthood for information?
Because they know they won't get it from parents like you. Because they're
afraid to ask questions like that of you. No wonder.
>>>I don't give a crap what you or anyone else on the net thinks, but I
>>>personally believe...
>>To use a favorite Kenny Arndt expression: this is the credo of the
>>"willfully stupid."
> I said that to indicate that my position is cast in cement and it is.
Since evidence to the contrary, logical reasoning, and even (most important
of all) the best interests of your (future?) children apparently won't
break this cement, there is little point in arguing. It is clear,
however, that the welfare of your kids is not your concern here. And that
is truly sad.
--
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Ray Frank
> > a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]
>
> Where do you see that? What's non-objective about it? The fact that it's
> at odds with your opinion?
>
> The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
> children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
> I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age. I
> also knew about death camps around the same time. So did most people in my
> peer group. So do most of my friends' kids. What are you trying to hide
> from your kids? And why? Real information about the real world teaches you
> to be a realist. Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
> That might get them thinking.
>
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?
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.
You say you knew at an 'early age' blah blah blah. Ambiguous. Again, no
concrete information, just vague generalizations. You also knew other 'real
information' about the same time as 'early age'. Huh?
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. I believe from what I've observed of your postings that
you fit the above description (mild flame intended).
> > 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?
> > 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.
> --
> Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
> Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
What's important is knowing the difference. Do you?
Richard Foy
>
If this is so, what is your purpose in participating in this net.
richard foy
Rich Rosen
>>> having a great deal of trouble remaining objective. [RAY]
>>Where do you see that? What's non-objective about it? The fact that it's
>>at odds with your opinion? [ROSEN]
> No. It is obvious by your over generalization of your attack on parents.
Obviously an attack on SOME parents, specifically parents who give their
children misinformation or none at all, or who teach by edict and not by
example, is an overgeneralization to Ray. It would only be so if I made the
remark about all parents. Ray must have taken it to heart that I was talking
about him or something. Why?
>>The fact that you choose deliberately to hide such real information from
>>children clues me in on the fact that you wouldn't make a very good parent.
>>I knew about the non-existence of Santa Claus at a rather early age. I
>>also knew about death camps around the same time. So did most people in my
>>peer group. So do most of my friends' kids. What are you trying to hide
>>from your kids? And why? Real information about the real world teaches you
>>to be a realist. Maybe you just wouldn't want your kids to be realists.
>>That might get them thinking.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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... :-?
> 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.
> 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?)
>>> 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?
>>> 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.
>>Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
> What's important is knowing the difference. Do you?
Since apparently you ARE a parent, I must ask if you do, too. I like to
think that I do. Why don't you delineate to us all what is "imaginary"
about what I said above. It's apparent that you have some imaginary thoughts
of your own.
--
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Ray Frank
> > 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.
>
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.
Rich Rosen
>>> 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.
Yes, of course. You can tell this from the fact that I disagree with you.
>>> 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 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 anyway, 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.
Who says it is too late? Experience tells us that it is too late. Because
hiding the information until they are already able and willing and eager to
have sex means that they will leap ahead and do so in the absence of
information or in the presence of MISinformation. The only two ways of
avoiding that are (1) provide the information early (despite the fact that
you seem to think that kids are unable to understand it before puberty) or
(2) keep tight controls on your children at all times to ensure "proper"
behavior. Despite your apparent wishes to engage in the latter, it doesn't
work in the real world.
>>> 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.
You mean "susceptible to multiple interpretation"? "Doubtful or uncertain"?
I gave very concrete answers to your nebulous questions. I stated that, yes,
I and many people my own age (and their children today) are taught about
the non-existence of Santa Claus AND the existence of death camps at what you
consider an early age. In what way is that ambiguous? Look up "non sequitur".
>>> 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.
You're not making a point. Not surprising at all. What IS your point?
In what way are we talking about "vague generalizations" when specific
examples were offered? What kind of nonsense are you trying to pull?
>>> It's 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.
Not believing in a god, I sure don't. But it makes me wish that there were
a just god of some sort to take care of your kids in light of what you might
be doing to them. You, my friend, seem to be beyond both hope and prayer,
set in cement as you are.
>>> 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.
Ah, answers. Substantial from some, non-existent from 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.
You really are a sick puppy, my friend. *I* have the "black and white image"?
You are the one who says teaching your kids about sex is equivalent to
"substituting dildos for baby dolls". If you don't feel the need to offer
any information to her about the truth, she may well be substituting real
babies for baby dolls before you know it. Because of your failure to give
her the information.
> 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
> groups advocating 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.
And, hopefully, not her parents' biased standards either. (Punk rock groups
advocating kinky sex? I have to wonder what your definition of kinky is,
and whether this means you would restrict listening of anything you just happen
not to like. Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
rock". You'll make a real "hep" parent. :-)
>>>>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.
Since you haven't offered any answers, I apparently have nothing to fear.
> 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, which in 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.
Yet you seem to be living proof AGAINST this... Of course, you have a very
different definition of "good".
> 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.
(Someone play the Stars and Stripes Forever and wave the flag.) You have
a built-in contradiction there. It is precisely miserable parents like you
would apparently be who are in fact willfully destroying the "family unit"
of America.
pam pincha
>>
>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.
>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
>who could easily steal her principles that had been instilled in her since
>birth.
Sigh.
Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
world against my wishes" argument.
First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit. A result
of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing
abortions.
No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The
suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
person and see thing from that viewpoint.
(Sorry.I had more to say,but have to go.Maybe more later.)
P.M.Pincha-Wagener
Ray Frank
> > the area of intuitive reasoning.
>
> Yes, of course. You can tell this from the fact that I disagree with you.
>
>
> Not believing in a god, I sure don't. But it makes me wish that there were
> a just god of some sort to take care of your kids in light of what you might
> be doing to them. You, my friend, seem to be beyond both hope and prayer,
> set in cement as you are.
>
deduce this yourself at an 'early age'.
>
>
> >>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?
>
> Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
> rock". You'll make a real "hep" parent. :-)
>
Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock. But unfortunately
'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
> >>>>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.
>
>
> > 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, which in 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.
>
> (Someone play the Stars and Stripes Forever and wave the flag.) You have
> a built-in contradiction there. It is precisely miserable parents like you
> would apparently be who are in fact willfully destroying the "family unit"
> of America.
Thank you. In the remark above, you have helped my point tremendously.
You exhibit the twisted logic that is very much evident in today's youth.
Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal (brain
damaged) rock group. Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied chain saw
being extracted from someone's groin must have some social redeeming value
when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.
> --
PS. You asked what kinky sex was, well it's this way, normal sex is when you
rub your lover with a feather, kinky is when the chicken is still attached.
> Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Ray Frank
> Sigh.
> Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
> world against my wishes" argument.
> First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
> real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
> necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit. A result
> of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
> guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
> information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
> such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
> not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
> or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing
> abortions.
>
> No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The
> suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
> person and see thing from that viewpoint.
>
> (Sorry.I had more to say,but have to go.Maybe more later.)
> P.M.Pincha-Wagener
>
>
NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. It's not necessarily all their
fault. What is true is that they exist. A result of this is that there
are a large portion of kids who are misguided.
My juxtaposition.
Sound familiar?
Rich Rosen
>>> the area of intuitive reasoning.
>>Yes, of course. You can tell this from the fact that I disagree with you.
> No, how about just disagreeable.
Anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeable? In your last article to
someone else, you said "Experts? Well that rules you out?" to someone
else you disagreed with.
>>Not believing in a god, I sure don't. But it makes me wish that there were
>>a just god of some sort to take care of your kids in light of what you might
>>be doing to them. You, my friend, seem to be beyond both hope and prayer,
>>set in cement as you are.
> Did your parents tell you at an 'early age' that there is no God or did you
> just deduce this yourself at an 'early age'.
Given that my parents believe in God, I learned this on my own. At what some
may consider an early age.
>>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
>>rock". You'll make a real "hep" parent. :-)
> Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock. But unfortunately
> 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
Care to explain that? With examples? And clarifications on how "decadent"
and dangerous it is? From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?
>>> 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, which in 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.
>>(Someone play the Stars and Stripes Forever and wave the flag.) You have
>>a built-in contradiction there. It is precisely miserable parents like you
>>would apparently be who are in fact willfully destroying the "family unit"
>>of America.
> Thank you. In the remark above, you have helped my point tremendously.
> You exhibit the twisted logic that is very much evident in today's youth.
> Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal (brain
> damaged) rock group. Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied chain saw
> being extracted from someone's groin must have some social redeeming value
> when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.
I have "helped your point"? Why not tell us what is twisted about my logic?
(I'll tell you why not: inability.) So now you've also picked up the term
"heavy metal". Bra-vo! Doing research! Watching MTV? Which album was this,
I'd like to get a copy, after all, people buy albums based on their attraction
to the album cover, not the music inside...
> PS. You asked what kinky sex was, well it's this way, normal sex is when
> you rub your lover with a feather, kinky is when the chicken is still
> attached.
Whew! I'm so relieved. By Ray's standards, my sex life does not qualify as
kinky. (Actually I was kind of hoping that it would.)
--
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Bill Tanenbaum
> > Sigh.
> > Again we get back to "how dare my child get information from the outside
> > world against my wishes" argument.
> > First off, let us remember we are dealing with the real world. In the
> > real world, NOT ALL PARENTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING! It's not
> > necessarily all their fault. What is true is that they exit. A result
> > of this is that there are a large portion of kids with little or no
> > guidence,or trust,in their parents. These kids need somewhere to find
> > information. Planned parenthood had as one of its tennants to provide
> > such info -- info from a NON-THREATENING SOURCE! LOTS of parents will
> > not OR cannot provide any information on sex,birth control,pregnancy
> > or such. PPclinics provide this in addition to possibly performing
> > abortions.
> >
> > No one stated you family was such a case , or could be. The
> > suggestions were that you put yourself in the place of such a
> > person and see thing from that viewpoint.
> [Ray Frank]
> NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. It's not necessarily all their
> fault. What is true is that they exist. A result of this is that there
> are a large portion of kids who are misguided.
>
> My juxtaposition.
> Sound familiar?
No. What are you trying to say, Ray? All kids (except orphans) have
parents. Only a very small fraction ever talk to PP, and then only for a short
time. Even if I thought teen-aged use of contraceptives was wrong, I would
still be far off the mark blaming PP for all of this.
So Ray, you have taken Pam's words, (accurate ones, in my opinion), and
by "clever" (to an eight year old, maybe) word substitution, have come up
with nonsense, thereby in your own mind discrediting Pam's arguments.
Please forgive a slight digression---
Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
whatever it is you don't like. I can't stand the music either, but the
only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
Michael McNeil
> Sound familiar? [FRANK RAY]
I don't believe anyone in this group is arguing that *parents*
should not exist, misguided though many are, or that they should
not exert influence on their children. Why then should Planned
Parenthood not exist, even if imperfect? Since many parents *are*
misguided, why shouldn't there exist other sources of information,
admittedly also imperfect, to compensate? No one can provide
perfect advice, but given a spectrum of ideas, kids *can* choose.
----------------
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Ray Frank
> >>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
> >>rock". You'll make a real "hep" parent. :-)
>
> > Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock. But unfortunately
> > 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
>
> Care to explain that? With examples? And clarifications on how "decadent"
> and dangerous it is? From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?
>
from a popular rock group. Ten youths in Texas last year copied Ozzie by bitinginto dead bats they found on their way home from school, they all had to recieve
rabie treatments. Satanic cults have been on the increase due to cult worship
music. What young people must realize is this; these satanic, distorted,
geeks, are playing for keeps. They believe what they sing about, or rather
preach about in what they call music. They ARE praticing what they advocate,
i.e. drugs, violence, sex, santanic cult worship. I'm afraid the youth
following these groups believe they are watching just some actors performing
and at the end of the performance they become 'real, everyday, normal' people.
According to interviews done with heavy metal and their like in Rolling
Stone, they are crazy like that 24 hours a day. These geek rock groups are
playing for real, they are not acting. When have you ever heard a geek group
say at the end of their performance; 'Listen kids, this was just an act, don't
ever try this at home, you know, biting heads off bats, and we don't really
mean you should turn on with drugs, sex, and violence as our lyrics advocate.
We are normal, we have kids of our own whom we love and don't want them doing
these things we sing about. And by the way kids, we don't really believe that
God is bad and satan is good. And finally kids, those animals we tossed around
on stage, those are trained kittens and puppys, we didn't really hurt them.'
You will hear the above about as often as you would have heard Hitler apoligize
to the Jews.
> > Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal (brain
> > damaged) rock group. Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied chain saw
> > being extracted from someone's groin must have some social redeeming value
> > when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.
>
> I have "helped your point"? Why not tell us what is twisted about my logic?
> (I'll tell you why not: inability.) So now you've also picked up the term
> "heavy metal". Bra-vo! Doing research! Watching MTV? Which album was this,
> I'd like to get a copy, after all, people buy albums based on their attraction
> to the album cover, not the music inside...
>
Again, you've helped my point along. These youth are purchasing the albums
based on some picture depicting the theme of the 'music', but not on the merit
of the group as musical entertainers. I don't know what age you are Rich, but
if you are still buying albums based on the covers, then you've been success-
fully indoctrinated by these geek groups.
Ray Frank
> should not exist, misguided though many are, or that they should
> not exert influence on their children. Why then should Planned
> Parenthood not exist, even if imperfect? Since many parents *are*
> misguided, why shouldn't there exist other sources of information,
> admittedly also imperfect, to compensate? No one can provide
> perfect advice, but given a spectrum of ideas, kids *can* choose.
>
> ----------------
> Michael McNeil
> 3Com Corporation
> (415) 960-9367
> ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Since you seem to believe that many parents are misguided, does that mean
that PP counselors are single people, because if they are parents themselves,
then they must fall into your clasification of parents who are misguiding kids.
Or, perhaps you mean that PP counselors who are themselves parents are the
cream of the crop of parents and are not full of the same misgivings as
'ordinary' parents.
Also, how can a misguided kid be compensated by more misguided information?
One more thing, I wish you would not over simplify PP's position with respect
to their dealings with kids, in addition to guided and misguided info, they
also cut babies out of kids bellies, after the birth control methods they
provided failed.
Ray Frank
> > NOT ALL PP COUNSELORS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. It's not necessarily all their
> > fault. What is true is that they exist. A result of this is that there
> > are a large portion of kids who are misguided.
> >
> No. What are you trying to say, Ray? All kids (except orphans) have
> parents. Only a very small fraction ever talk to PP, and then only for a short
visiting PP, not kids at large.
> Please forgive a slight digression---
> Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
> whatever it is you don't like. I can't stand the music either, but the
> only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
> --
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
HUH! What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.
Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
Rich Rosen
>>>>rock". You'll make a real "hep" parent. :-)
>>> Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock. But unfortunately
>>> 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
>>Care to explain that? With examples? And clarifications on how "decadent"
>>and dangerous it is? From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?
> Helter Skelter inspired Manson. The night stalker in L.A. said he got his
> ideas from a popular rock group. Ten youths in Texas last year copied Ozzie
> by bitinginto dead bats they found on their way home from school, they all had
> to recieve rabie treatments. Satanic cults have been on the increase due to
> cult worship music. ... ... ... ... ... [who else? -- RAY]
This is perhaps the most revealing item about Ray ever posted. When asked to
describe why punk rock is more decadent than "acid rock", the examples he
gives have nothing to do with punk rock. Helter Skelter was written by
Paul McCartney, the most saccharine musical sap of the 70s, writer of music
any yuppie "parent" would go gaga over. What Ray has never bothered to notice
(too busy calling Ozzie Osbourne a punk rocker) is that this so-called punk
rock (none of which he has referred to) was a rebellion AGAINST the saccharine
droll boring music that once was acid rock (e.g., Jefferson Airplane) and is
now commercial schlock (Jefferson Starship). Some things are worth rebelling
against. But, tell that to Ray, who thinks preservation of the status quo is
the will of god.
>>> Turn up your headphones, and learn from the 'logic' of some heavy metal
>>> (brain damaged) rock group. Even the albumn cover I saw with a bloodied
>>> chain saw being extracted from someone's groin must have some social
>>> redeeming value when examined with the 'logic' of the illogical.
>>I have "helped your point"? Why not tell us what is twisted about my logic?
>>(I'll tell you why not: inability.) So now you've also picked up the term
>>"heavy metal". Bra-vo! Doing research! Watching MTV? Which album was this,
>>I'd like to get a copy, after all, people buy albums based on their attraction
>>to the album cover, not the music inside...
> Again, you've helped my point along. These youth are purchasing the albums
> based on some picture depicting the theme of the 'music', but not on the
> merit of the group as musical entertainers. I don't know what age you are
> Rich, but if you are still buying albums based on the covers, then you've been
> successfully indoctrinated by these geek groups.
(Sarcasm indicators are often necessary in the most obvious of places for the
most obtuse of people.) Note that Ray "forgot" to mention the name of the
album he claims to have seen. Hmmm...
Charles Forsythe
an army of parents advocating `groin control'" can clearly be demonstrated
to be a logical conclusion: kids will always defy their parents and those that
do it "with protection" have only a slight chance of pregnancy. Simple huh?
In article <11...@rochester.UUCP> r...@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes:
>One more thing, I wish you would not over simplify PP's position with respect
>to their dealings with kids, in addition to guided and misguided info, they
>also cut babies out of kids bellies, after the birth control methods they
>provided failed.
Why are facts from pro-choicers almost always met with ad-hoc value judgements
from pro-lifers?
--
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
Have they not suffered enough?"
from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
Charles Forsythe
>> whatever it is you don't like. I can't stand the music either, but the
>> only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
>> --
>> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
>
What made YOU an authority?
>Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
It's entertaining. It gives kids something to talk about. It's fun to dance
to. Maybe you're talking about "backward masking?" I finally got a chance to
ask the world's leading linguist, Noam Chomsky, if "backward masking" actually
worked. He just laughed.
In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
>It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
>movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
Ratings are seldom enforced except in the case of "X" and "XXX".
The suggestion of a "Music Ratings" system has been laughed out of the FCC
a dozen times by now.
Get a clue, Ray.
John Allred
>> Also, I am tired of hearing you blame "acid | punk | whatever" rock for
>> whatever it is you don't like. I can't stand the music either, but the
>> only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
>> --
>> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
>
>*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
>HUH! What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.
>Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
Sorry, Mr. Frank. YOU asserted that various "evil" rock music is "corrupting"
our youth. The burden of proof is on you.
--
John Allred
General Computer Company
uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
Ray Frank
> In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
> Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
>
maybe you're the only one who did hear it. By the way Charlie, Elvis was
white.
> >It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
> >movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
>
> Ratings are seldom enforced except in the case of "X" and "XXX".
>
Well, again, what are you saying, that we don't need ratings on movies? This
time, please don't answer the question with a non-answer.
>
>
> --
> Charles Forsythe
Bill Tanenbaum
> > whatever it is you don't like. I can't stand the music either, but the
> > only teen-age problem it is primarily responsible for is DEAFNESS.
> > --
> > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
>
> HUH! What makes you an authority on the effects of decadent music on youths.
> Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
> movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
I'm sorry, Ray. I forgot that you are the ultimate expert on rock music,
planned parenthood, secular humanism, evolution, God, man, life, and death.
I will never again state an opinion on anything without getting a certificate
of expertise from you.
By the way, I contend that teen-age suicide and delinquency stems from
eating french fried potatoes. Every delinquent and moral degenerate
has eaten them. Please give examples of how they do not adversely
affect our youth.
Kerro Panille
>> 3Com Corporation
>> (415) 960-9367
>> ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
>
>*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
>Since you seem to believe that many parents are misguided, does that mean
>that PP counselors are single people, because if they are parents themselves,
>then they must fall into your clasification of parents who are misguiding kids.
>Or, perhaps you mean that PP counselors who are themselves parents are the
>cream of the crop of parents and are not full of the same misgivings as
>'ordinary' parents.
You missed the point - PP counselors are TRAINED PROFESSIONALS. They ARE
better than normal, untrained parents.
--
Vince Hatem ---------------- A
Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T
Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ &
444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T
4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN'
Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES
(201) 699-4869 /-----/
...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
(WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
Charles Forsythe
Honest?
>> Ratings are seldom enforced except in the case of "X" and "XXX".
>>
>Well, again, what are you saying, that we don't need ratings on movies? This
>time, please don't answer the question with a non-answer.
Maybe we do, maybe we don't. If it makes you feel better to have ratings, I
don't see why we shouldn't.
I hope it doesn't bother you that they are, in general, ignored.
Sorry, Ray.
Cloyd Goodrum
Rich & Ray are havin' it out:
>>>>>Nice to see you looked up the words "punk rock" to replace "acid
>>>>>rock". You'll make a real "hep" parent. :-)
>
>>>> Good of you to realize that punk rock replaced acid rock. But unfortunately
>>>> 'punk' and its like is even more decadent than its predecessor.
>
>>>Care to explain that? With examples? And clarifications on how "decadent"
>>>and dangerous it is? From the man who brought us the dangers of "acid rock"?
>
>> Helter Skelter inspired Manson. The night stalker in L.A. said he got his
>> ......
And so forth.
Guys,guys,guys. This is an interesting topic, well worth all the
attention you are giving it, but WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH ABORTION???
Cloyd Goodrum III
Bill Tanenbaum
> > [Charles Forsythe]
> > In the late 50's, a lot of Klan-types tried to assert that rock music was a
> > Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
> >
> [Ray Frank]
> No I don't believe that, I never even heard that theme before, sounds like
> maybe you're the only one who did hear it. By the way Charlie, Elvis was
> white.
Sorry to tell you, Ray, Mr. Forsythe is right. I am old enough to remember
the 50's first hand. A lot of White Citizen Council types said exactly
that. Of course, if you, the ultimate authority on everyting, don't
remember it, it didn't happen. Elvis's skin color is irrelevent.
Michael C. Berch
> Please give examples of how it is not adversely affecting our youth.
> It is as though you were saying we don't need ratings on movies because
> movies don't affect anyone, except in the cases of failing vision.
This is a specious form of argumentation in which the debater asserts that
his point of view is valid unless you can prove the opposite. It has
been used to "prove" the existence of everything from God to little
green men. In the absence of proof, logic dictates that we do not accept
the proposition that "A causes B", merely because there is no proof
(or if it is impossible to prove or disprove) that A DOES NOT cause B.
Michael C. Berch
m...@lll-tis-b.ARPA
{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
Rich Rosen
>>> Negro plot to destroy the good White kids. Maybe you still believe that.
>>No I don't believe that, I never even heard that theme before, sounds like
>>maybe you're the only one who did hear it. By the way Charlie, Elvis was
>>white. [Ray Frank]
> Sorry to tell you, Ray, Mr. Forsythe is right. I am old enough to remember
> the 50's first hand. A lot of White Citizen Council types said exactly
> that. Of course, if you, the ultimate authority on everyting, don't
> remember it, it didn't happen. Elvis's skin color is irrelevent. [TANENBAUM]
Well, it is relevant in a roundabout sort of way. When Elvis' music was first
breaking, Colonel Tom Parker (his manager) had to physically take him around
to many radio stations, because they were convinced he was black, and they
wouldn't play "black music" (or "race music", as it was called). I think we've
seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
that we should "return" to that). What scares me is not that he is a standout
crackpot. What scares me is that I fear he is typical. Isn't Marcel Simon
having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."? This is what
is scary. This sort of "thinking" is the status quo.
--
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
--
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Ray Frank
> >> 3Com Corporation
> >> (415) 960-9367
> >> ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
> >
>
> better than normal, untrained parents.
>
> --
it. Who counsels the counselors? What does this crash course in counseling
consist of, most likely spoon fed predjudices biased toward PP's views?
Ray Frank
> Well, it is relevant in a roundabout sort of way. When Elvis' music was first
> breaking, Colonel Tom Parker (his manager) had to physically take him around
> to many radio stations, because they were convinced he was black, and they
> wouldn't play "black music" (or "race music", as it was called). I think we've
> seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
> net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
> that we should "return" to that). What scares me is not that he is a standout
> crackpot. What scares me is that I fear he is typical. Isn't Marcel Simon
> having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
> marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."? This is what
> is scary. This sort of "thinking" is the status quo.
> --
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
> --
> "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
> Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
say I am typical? Typical in terms of representing the nation's people as a
whole? If I am the status quo, then it is you and your cronies such as the
likes of Charlie and Richie that stand out. As usual, the central topic
has been avoided and side issues focused upon.
Rich Rosen
>>seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
>>net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
>>that we should "return" to that). What scares me is not that he is a standout
>>crackpot. What scares me is that I fear he is typical. Isn't Marcel Simon
>>having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
>>marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."? This is what
> You've stated a contradiction here. How can I be a standout crackpot if as
> you say I am typical? [RAY]
Are you out to prove me right? I said rather clearly that what scares me is
NOT your being a standout crackpot, but rather your being quite typical. And
you later said that you knew this, so whom are you kidding? I'm beginning
to think that perhaps you are just trying to make people who who hold positions
such as the ones you have described look foolish. Don't bother. It's easy
enough to show the flaws in such beliefs without lampooning them.
> Typical in terms of representing the nation's people as a whole? If I am the
> status quo, then it is you and your cronies such as the likes of Charlie and
> Richie that stand out.
(Charlie? Richie?) Status quo's have been wrong before. And they will
continue to be wrong in the future. It is blind acceptance that the status
quo is "right" that destroys civilizations in the long run.
> As usual, the central topic has been avoided and side issues focused upon.
Of course. We WERE talking about an article of yours, weren't we? When
was the last time an article of yours came anywhere near discussing abortion
at all?
--
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Bill Tanenbaum
> > Well, it is relevant in a roundabout sort of way. When Elvis' music was first
> > breaking, Colonel Tom Parker (his manager) had to physically take him around
> > to many radio stations, because they were convinced he was black, and they
> > wouldn't play "black music" (or "race music", as it was called). I think we've
> > seen enough examples of Ray's illiteracy when it comes to the issues (in
> > net.religion, he claimed that the USA was founded as a Christian country and
> > that we should "return" to that). What scares me is not that he is a standout
> > crackpot. What scares me is that I fear he is typical. Isn't Marcel Simon
> > having it out with someone else in this newsgroup who claims "sex outside
> > marriage is wrong regardless of religion, because ... uh ..."? This is what
> > is scary. This sort of "thinking" is the status quo.
> > --
> >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
> > --
> > "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
> > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
[Ray Frank]
> You've stated a contradiction here. How can I be a standout crackpot if as you
> say I am typical? Typical in terms of representing the nation's people as a
> whole? If I am the status quo, then it is you and your cronies such as the
> likes of Charlie and Richie that stand out. As usual, the central topic
> has been avoided and side issues focused upon.
Ray,
Please do not put my name on Rich Rosen's postings. You replied to a Rich
Rosen posting calling you a crackpot, and edited the posting to put my name
at the bottom instead of Rich's. I did not call you a crackpot, he did.
See, you are not infallible. You can make honest mistakes. Will you finally
admit it, and apologise to me for insulting me for remarks that someone
else made.
Ray Frank
> Ray,
> Please do not put my name on Rich Rosen's postings. You replied to a Rich
> Rosen posting calling you a crackpot, and edited the posting to put my name
> at the bottom instead of Rich's. I did not call you a crackpot, he did.
> See, you are not infallible. You can make honest mistakes. Will you finally
> admit it, and apologise to me for insulting me for remarks that someone
> else made.
> --
> Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
I apologise Bill, it was an honest mistake. I will try to be more careful
in the future.