🚀 go-pugleaf

J.M. Ivler wrote:

> In la.general Joseph E. Taranta <nospam_jtaran@ibm.net> wrote:
> : Did you really think this was well written? This individual pontificating
> : about what parents should or shouldn't be doing? This is merely induction by
> : enumeration. He (jmi) avoids addressing the real question.
>
> The real question? Joseph, I suggest that you start adressing the real
> question. Why is parenting not a responsibiloity you feel is deserved by
> those that procreate? Why do you want to let them off the hook?
>

I don't recall ever saying it was. Please go and look at all of my posts. Show me
where I even implied such a thing.  Please show me where I ever suggested that we
should let anyone off the hook.

What I recall saying is that whether we like it or not. If we have children in
public schools we (or they) have to deal with problems that others bring there with
them. To simply say it isn't so is unrealistic.

> : Yes, we all know
> : that ethics are in short supply among many parents and children. To simply
> : point it out does not offer a resolution.
>
> The state can't sterlize the morons who have kids that aren't responsible
> parents. It's not allowed. They also can't take kids away from people just
> because they are morons and had kids but refuse to accept the
> responsibilities of raising them. I propose that you offer a way to make
> parents responsible BEFORE they procreate and make more unethical morons
> from the expired gene pool.
>

First you make the spurious remark using social Darwinism (which in itself is
fallacious reasoning and pseudo science). Now are you relating behavior to
genetics? If this is what you are implying you will need to come up with more data
than a one line ante dote.

It  doesn't matter how you word it. It is still induction by enumeration.

I disagree; they often take away children from parents just because they are morons
(I am guessing you meant bad parents).
You have already made this point abundantly clear (ad nauseum). I don't think
anybody is disagreeing. Why do you insist on repeating yourself?

To take it a step further; I am in favor of punishing the parents of children they
claim can't be controlled. I am betting they would learn effective parenting skills
real fast.

> : I was raised around several people whose parents I would consider to be of low
> : moral character. Some of these people grew up to be rock steady, productive
> : and ethical adults.
>
> And you gave me crap in my posts becuase I used "personal experience" and
> then have the gall to do it yourself?

Yes, notice I kept my illustration down to two sentences and did not deviate from
the point.
This is also referred to as cogent reasoning. Something most of your tirades seem
to be lacking.
Although; I admit the additional verbiage was not necessary because I make the same
point in the sentence that follows this one.

When you do this it seems to go on and on for two or three paragraphs and contains
far too many clich�s that don't do anything to strengthen your argument.

> : If a person is raised by an alcoholic or rapist, or car thief does that mean
> : that they will also be these things?
>
> No guarentees in life kid. But studies have shown a greater propensity for
> the apple to stay close to the gene pool tree.

Ok, that sounds interesting. What studies were those? Again you make a correlation
between behavior and genetics. This sounds intriguing, but I am not buying it just
cause you said so... kid...

>
>
> : It does not follow that a person with bad parents are automatically going to
> : be bad.
>
> But putting them in a uniform will insure that they stay good. Wow, I'm
> glad you shared that bit of wisdom with us all.

Please; don't imply that I ever said anything even remotely close to that last
remark. Go back through the thread and show me where I ever said this. I do not
appreciate being misrepresented.

>
>
> : Did his cryptic ante dotes about speeding and checkout lines offer any insight
> : into using uniforms in schools?
> : If so, I missed it.
>
> Yes, you missed it. But like much of life that you seem to miss, it
> doesn't really matter. The facts are that there are any number of studies
> that show that uniforms solve ONE problem and have a minor influence on
> another (absenteeism). There are many studies that show that most kids
> don't rise above the environments, and the nature .v. nurture studies show
> that time after time, nurture can both uplift and drag down.
>
> You seem to feel this need to say that uniforms do something, or mean
> something, but you have no evidence to back up your comments. I can, and
> if you instist, will provide more than enough Skinner refrences on the way
> behavior can be modified (socialization mdoifications based on learning)
> to more then make stand my antecdotal references, but why bother, you most
> likely think Skinner was Trapper's buddy in the fur business.

Please... Enlighten us; nobody is stopping you... At least cite us a reference.
Once again you are all over the map.

Let me reiterate I never said I was for or against uniforms. I merely pointed out
that in certain communities parents feel that the use of uniforms elicit good
behavior and citizenship. Again, that is for those particular school districts to
decide.

Did I ever say I agreed or disagreed with that?  No.....

The Skinner/Trapper remark... Were you making an attempt at witticism? I am sure a
person with your intellect and erudition can do better than that.

>
>
> If you don't think the parenting paridgem is breaking down, and that the
> breakdown is responsible for generating a system that now fails to
> educate, then provide other evidence. I don't subscribe to "tough love",
> but I do subscribe to the fact that a parents first responsibility is to
> parent the children that they bear. If they did this first and foremost,
> would we today have parents comming into school with lines like "I just
> can't control my child."? Would lines like that be considered acceptable?

Once again another tirade; It seems we are in violent agreement on this one
point...

The thing I don't buy is all the other remarks you made earlier about the "state"
taking away you and your child's "right" to attire.

>
>
> When a parent doesn't "control" their child, then it is the states
> responsibility to enforce control. It is the state that must take control.
> Unfortunatly it can't take away peoples rights for being asswipes (if it
> could most of us wouldn't be able to post to Usenet). It has to wait until
> the asswipe performs an action that is above and beyond the rules that we,
> as a society, agree to. Then it will enforce the rule of law. Until then
> aswipes can continue to be asswipes and you and I can continue to post our
> respective opinions to Usenet.
>
> jmi

Allow me to put things into perspective.
Lets go back to my original post. I responded point by point to a person about the
use uniforms which I would have ignored had they not made the racist remark about
the Japanese.  You saw fit to jump in  and give your unique brand of
one-dimensional insight.

These are your word Ivler... Yours, not mine:

> Your excuses for allowing the state to define "uniforms" as an acceptable
> policy are actually valid (based on studies) for schools where gang
> colours are worn. But to base it on socio-economics is an injustice to
> every parent as the state can define any difference as great enough to
> establish your proposed standard.
>
> jmi
Your words... Not mine...
It was you that made the claim about it being valid based on studies NOT ME. Got
it?

What did I say?

   Posted: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:53:08 -0600
-Many parents could care less about what is going on in their kids lives or
-some are completely over indulged and have no sense of humility or humanity.

-If nothing else uniforms give a sense of belonging and put every one on even
-ground. I am not saying that it is a good idea for every community.  <---- NOTE
THIS.
-It is very much so for communities where drugs, violence and gang activity
-is prevalent or for communities where the students come from varying
socio-economic conditions.

The only statement I made about it that even remotely suggests that I think they
are a good idea. I base this solely on feedback from some of the inner-city schools
here that were trying it.
Again the community as a collective body made that decision not "the state".

I think if the parents get together with the school administration and decide to
try it more power to them.

So.. My own personal opinion? I could not care less one way or the other. We will
never be faced with it.
I guarantee you it would not play well out here in the burbs.

As for you Mr. Ivler, I don't mind debating as long as I am not misrepresented. Now
then; you can agree or disagree. I don't really care. Please just try and stay
focused in the future.

One last thing..... You keep making remarks about sterilizing people and killing
off what you deem as undesirable.
Again... Your words not mine:

>J.M. Ivler wrote:
> My draconian solution is to kill the asswipes and sterlize the
> incompetant parents so they can't repeat their mistakes.

Is this really your opinion? Are you advocating genocide?

If so; I don't think I want to continue this conversation....

--
Regards;
Joseph E. Taranta