From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:49:15 GMT

In article <nyikos.713807185@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <BssBC1.9Hq@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.182914.9899@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:

>>    [editted for brevity, but some juicy parts left in]

>>>Okay, folks, here it is again, revised:

>>>*Suppose your kid switches sides, and becomes pro-life? And:
>>>*Suppose they want to join the Catholic Church?
>>>*Suppose they announce that they're voting Republican?
>>   [etc]

>[Some very drastic possible courses of action, with negative answers to them
>all from Roby, omitted here.]

The drastic actions were from Steve -- I simply answered "no" to each.
To wit:
>>>Would you not do one of the following:
>>>1) Kick them out of the house?
>>>2) Beat them senseless?
>>>3) Beat them within one inch of their lives?
>>>4) Disown them from the family?
>>>5) Kick them in their genitals if they were male?
>>>6) Do something as simple as harass or put enormous family pressure on
>>>them?

[roby writes]
>>Once again Chaney mistakenly assumes that everyone is as rabid as he is.
>>Another mistaken assumption is implied by the use of the words "switched 
>>sides".  My parents did not presume to indoctrinate me in political 
>>matters.

>People switch sides even if they were not previously indoctrinated.

Absolutely true, but misses the point.  Chaney's statement:

>>>*Suppose your kid switches sides, and becomes pro-life? And:

makes the implicit assumption that the way to get a pro-life child in a 
pro-choice family is for the child to "switch sides".  I think it would 
be easier to simply assume the child grew up pro-life in the pro-choice 
home.  I do not assume the politics of the child would be that of the 
parent.  I grew up liberal -- my parents are conservative.  I never 
had to switch because I was never trained to be conservative (or anything 
else).

>Probable examples from the pro-choice side:  Nathanson, Reagan, Bush,
>all of whom were very strongly pro-choice at some stage of their
>careers.  "Flip-floppers" from the pro-life side are even more common.
>When Newsweek ran a post-election analysis in 1990 one of the "myths"
>it said held up well was that "flip-floppers don't do well".  Guess 
>what? all the examples it gave were people who flip-flopped from
>pro-life to pro-choice, and lost the election as a result.

Well, that says something about Newsweek, democrats, or flip-floppers 
I'm sure.  So?

>>  In our family, it was understood that we should make up our 
>>own mind in such matters, rather than tow the "family line".
                                        ^^^ Oops!  I meant "toe"

>Was this lip service, or did some member of your family really
>go over to the pro-life side?  convert to Catholicism, evangelical
>Protestantism, or some other politically incorrect religion?

I didn't know that religions could be politically incorrect.  :-)  
But I get your drift.  Since my family is Protestant and my sister-in-law 
and nephew are Jewish, and my folks are generally conservative, I think 
I can easily say it was more than just lip-service.

>Sometimes families realize that they really did not mean what they
>said about "make up our own mind about such matters" until 
>a hypothetical possibility suddenly becomes an actuality.

You raise a valid point, but I think my family has been put to the test 
and passed.  

>>Hey, I've learned to tolerate my parent's opposing political views from 
>>the very start.  What's the big deal? 

>Classic example from the 1960's: student radicals tolerating their
>establishment-liberal parents, and "Clean for Gene" fellow students
>trying to work within the system.  No such tolerance for conservative
>parents, fellow students.

Umm, no.  I don't think so.  Our discussions are generally liberal vs. 
conservative rather than liberal vs. anti-establishment.  It still goes 
on and we are still one big happy family.

>>>There's no WAY you can get out of this one, except to ignore what I've
>>>said, and let all the net.readers in the world know I'm right. Not that my
>>>being right is any less than a common occurrence here, but this would seal
>>>it up beyond a doubt. 

>>The above paragraph is my candidate for funniest post of the week.

>As I said in an earlier post, which did not get through: too many people
>in talk.abortion count their chickens (not to be confused with eggs with
>developing embryos inside) before they are hatched.  The earlier example
>was a hilariously anachronistic Deuteronomy reference ("kingdom of heaven"
>appears nowhere in the Old Testament, let alone the Pentateuch) from the
>pro-choice side, with the pro-choicers crowing "Boy, that'll really 
>knock them down!" or some such comment. ["Them" presumably refers to
>pro-choicers from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, which holds
>the Pentateuch sacred, or something close to that.]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

>This is an example [Chaney] from the pro-life side.

I'm not sure you've read enough Chaney, if you think you can casually 
compare him to anyone else in this newsgroup (Ok, maybe M.I.Kaufman) :-).



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*