From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: California State University: Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:16:35 GMT

In article <23770@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <23616@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>>tes:
>>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>>In article <23524@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) w
>>ri
>>>>tes:
>>>>>In talk.abortion, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>>I think you have that confused with Mr. Spock, the logical entity of
>>>Star Trek fame. :) Seriously, I have heard of Dr. Spock, but don't know
>>>a thing about him, except that he wrote something about raising children.
>
>>No, I am not confusing the Spock's. His name was Benjamin Spock, the
>>originator of "Spare the rod, spoil the child." Now, I can agree with
>>sparing the rod as a rule, but I can't agree with spoiling the child, as a
>>rule.
>
>Get a sense of humor. Notice the smiley? I was kidding. Geez! As for
>sparing the rod, if that implies beatings with any type of implement,
>then I agree, one should never use any implement other than a hand for
>spanking. Why? Because one cannot tell how hard one is hitting with
>an implement. Pain is not the primary tool of the discipline to be imparted,
>rather the knowledge of extreme displeasure. For certain levels of intellect,
>the only effective means of conveying such displeasure is through physical
>stimuli, as higher levels of cognitive thought are reached, these are
>no longer necessary. The second portion, spoiling the child, I also
>disagree with, as a separate issue, because spoiled children normally
>do not develop into functioning adults nearly as quickly as the average
>child. (disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist, these are just my personal
>opinions, gathered from actually seeing how children react, and some 
>reading)

Agreed. 

>>He's way overage. The problem is not about not being able to come back;
>>it's that he has no inheritance. And do you not agree that as long as
>>they're living in your house, they go by your rules?
>
>Why is not having an inheritance so terrible, in your eyes? Most of
>us won't have any inheritance to speak of, and personally, I hope my
>folks spend their money, after all, they worked for it, they should
>enjoy it. They didn't get any inheritance either, and started quite
>literally with nothing. As for living by one's rules while in one's
>house, that goes to a point. It depends what kind of rules they were,
>and how they limited what one could do outside the house. As in a curfew
>is really overdone, as is a requirement to be home every night. Someone
>over the age of 20 (I say this because 18 or 19 could still be considered
>a high school kid) cannot have this type of requirement placed on them
>anymore, as they have friends and might wish to just spend the night,
>etc. Rules such as cleaning up your dishes, and putting up your clothes
>are fine, however. Having clothes strewn about the house would not be
>asthetically pleasing to most people I know. Also, at this age, there
>is an expectation that some form of rent would be paid, as the person
>is now an adult, and should do some fending for himself.

Why is not having an inheritance so terrible? 

Well, it's not like there _isn't_ an inheritance here: my folks have 2
houses and now a condo, which they aren't exactly planning to give to
the State when they die of old age. 

The issue is _losing_ what could be coming to you one day. 

Can you tell the difference between not having seen a million $ and
then losing the clear and present promise of a million $ (well, 1/2
mil in our case)? 

>>The fights were largely about his not being home. Then he didn't come home
>>after having to fight, so they got tired of it and gave him an ultimatum,
>>which he shaped up and followed until he got old enough to leave. Then he
>>stupidly said "piss off."
>
>So he evidently was underage, until this time? Earlier, you said he
>was overage. Sorry about any confusion.

He was underage when he first got unruly, then when our folks got on
him, he stayed nice until he got to be an adult, and then he asserted
that they had no power over his affairs and that they ought to shut up
and, in not so nice terms, bug off. 

>Ron
>
>Potassium Benzoate included as a preserver.


===============================================================================
			Robert Casey for President '96! 
			 This Casey never strikes out.
===============================================================================
Pro-Contraception   Pro-Freedom of Religion, Speech & Sexual Orientation 
Pro-Privacy    Pro-Humanism   And a Democrat to Boot | 
                           <<<=== Pro-Life ===>>> 
===============================================================================
BBBBBB     OOOOOOOO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    Founder: Steve Chaney 
B    B     O      O   S         S          <chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu> 
BBBBBBBB   O     OO   SSSSSSS   SSSSSSS    
BB     B   O     OO        SS        SS    Borg Operating 
BBBBBBBB O OOOOOOOO O SSSSSSS O SSSSSSS O  Space Systems, Revision 2.0 

	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: talk.abortion