From: mysti@sybase.com (Mysti)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,soc.singles
Subject: Re: BARBIE DOES IT AGAIN!!!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:28:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Sybase, Inc.

In article <1992Oct7.162053.3664@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>In article <LOWRY.92Oct7103712@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.130304.19446@cbfsb.cb.att.com> jjd1@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>> > In article <1at09jINN8m9@network.ucsd.edu> dlin@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin) writes:
>> > > [description of playground run-in who felt that Diane's son Dylan
>> > > should have pushed back when his own son, twice Dylan's side,
>> > > pushed him]
>> >
>>
>>It's one thing to acknowledge that there are situations in which one
>>must defend oneself.  It's another to accept, as the playground
>>bully's father did, the idea that your child can go around beating up
>>on anybody, let alone kids half his size, and if they can't defend
>>themselves it's there tough luck.  Your comment doesn't seem to have
>>much to do with the situation Diane described.
> 
> My comment was meant for the future. Not in regards to history.
> 
> Let me tie it in for you. Do you think Diane will be there in school
>when someone decides to pick on young Dylan. Do you think the
>bully at school picks on bigger people generally. Now think about that.

None of this nonsense has anything to do with the proposition at hand,
that one cannot raise a child to be a reasonably non-agressive person
while also telling them to meet violence with violence.  Are you disagreeing
with this proposition?  The fact that violence exist is not a rationalization
in itself for continuing the cycle of violence, and it certainly isn't a
defense of the father's attitude, which is "my big kid worked over your
little kid, so what?".

And finally, do try to remember that the future comes from the present,
via the past.


>So you see I was not referring to the slugs attitude, but about life.
>Now think about that. Is a tie in developing for you? No? Well thats
>OK because I wasn't responding to some obscure playground adventure
>you where once involved in.

Are you familiar with the concept of "analogy"?  Diane used a real-life
event as an illustration of the problem at hand, and you as opponent are
expected to address the issue she raised with this example, not merely
waive away the example as unimportant.

>> > At some point a man has to do what a man has to do.
>>
>>Wow, what a macho phrase!  I take it you don't believe it's important
>>for women to be able to defend themselves against attack.  Else why
>>the gender-specific remark?
> 
> I don't see a lot of bullys man handling girls out on the playground.
>Your experience is probably different. As long as you have decided to
>imply I'm a chauvenist allow me to inquire, do you always strike up
>the cause of feminism at the drop of a hat.

What makes you think she is promoting the cause of feminism?  *You* are
the one who made a gender-specific response, and it is reasonable
regardless of personal belief to enquire, "what about the other half
of the population"?  So, why don't you go ahead and answer the question?

>Perhaps you are one of those militant feminist sensitive 90's type guys.
>I hope I haven't offended you and I'll bet Diane is relieved her search
>for her knight in shining armor is over.

Personal assault is a specious response to a well-made argument, presidential
rhetorical habits notwithstanding.

>> > Eventually your son will being fighting for his slice of the pie in
>> > life and you are not going to be there.  

Not if she teaches him how to handle violent situations in nonviolent ways.
Actually, there's been a lot of peace breaking out, you should look around.
Diane is trying to help both children by pointing out to the father
the bully's unacceptable behavior.  Why do you consider the bully's
behavior acceptable?  If you don't, then why do you condone it by saying
the father's reaction (i.e. no reaction) is not out of line?

>>It sounds like Diane will have prepared him well to fight for what is
>>rightfully his, but not to exploit weaknesses in others to get what is
> 
>Nice leap of logic pal. Yes she did a wonderfull job. Mommy he didn't
>give me my ball. Then Dylan saw his mother getting pissed off and
>said "I shall not exploit weaknesses in others." Do you watch a lot
>of cartoons?

Couldn't you please stick to the point?  Exactly *why* is it better to
perpetuate violent behavior than to teach your children not to be violent?
And remember, the fact that violence exists is not an adequate justification.

> I personally would have said "Either you can have your child behave civilly
>or I'll do it". I certainly would not sit there and let my kid get bullied.

Great, then all four of them could end up in the hospital.  Or the mother
would end up carrying assault charges around.  Very unproductive way to
solve the problem.

>My son is under strick orders to tell his teacher if he is hit. If the   
>problem is not resolved and he is hit a second time he is to hit back.
>Out of curiosity Andy do you have any children or are you some snot
>nosed recent "mature" graduate?

Once again, the tired old attack-the-person-instead-of-the-argument.

Mysti
--
Friends don't let friends vote Republican