From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Sex ed in school
Organization: The World
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 01:31:14 GMT


Mr. Murphy, as much as you might wish it were so, this world will not
be fixed by your finger-wagging, satisfying as it might seem.

From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
>Schools, funded with my tax dollars, should be teaching 
>the basics understood as the Three Rs.  Schools, the K-12 grades, have no 
>business mucking around in music, industrial arts, home economics, 
>physical education, and SEX EDUCATION.

That you do not understand the fabric which holds this society
together is apparent. That you believe you can formulate an opinion in
your Archie-Bunkeresque way is either frightening or laughable
depending on how seriously one is willing to take you.

Does it ever occur to you, for example, why people in places like
Serbia are killing each other today? What these cultural differences
are that these people are happy to shoot each other over? Why they
exist so strongly in one place and barely in another?

Do you really look at the society around you and view as some sort of
natural order, something which exists outside of the forces that might
have created it?

Put more simply: Do you honestly believe that people are machines, as
you portray them? With no soul, no value, no purpose other than what
you proscribe as their most minimal needs?

>The schools, the government, is taking the place of the family and that's 
>not a good thing.  It has now gone so far as to teach our children about 
>sex - that wonderful experience that used to be reserved for our parents 
>to teach.  While doing so, they'd also impart the morals that MUST go 
>along with it.

Maybe a better question to ask is: Where have you become so alienated
that you create these neat little boxes separating schools from
"life"?

And how do you possibly avoid teaching moral values no matter what you
teach. Shall we give fair treatment to both sides of WWII in the
history classes? Or avoid the subject entirely because it forces us to
project a moral stance?

Or is that all very simple and untroubling because you have made your
mind up on the issue, and the general consensus happens to agree with
your view. So that one is ok to teach?

Who taught you that amorality in education is a platonic ideal?

>Schools are simply not equipped to teach morals.

Schools do almost nothing but teach morals and values. The information
content is secondary. And if you don't understand why then every
breath you take is a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

What you meant to say was that schools are not equipped to teach
about certain morals YOU are uncomfortable with.

I doubt you quibble when they teach that democracy is good,
totalitarianism is bad (or vice-versa, it's hard to tell which you
favor from your post), or it's wrong to steal etc.

So cut the b***sh** and how about at least not making a fool of
yourself by displaying such exasperating bone-headedness and try to
talk to the subject: Of the zillions of morals and moral lessons one
is taught in school there are a few YOU are uncomfortable with.

>In the antiseptic 
>environment that the government must provide, it cannot delve into the 
>morals that usually come from a religious belief.

Good.

Maybe *that's* what belongs in the home.

>In peer pressured 
>filled environment of school, experimenting with sex is more accepted at 
>earlier and earlier ages.

This is a total non-sequitar.

>If you live in a city and walk around, you might notice more young kids 
>begging for a quarter for nothing more than to play a video game.

Have you considered saying "no, sorry" when they ask? What would you
have us do? Shoot them on sight?

>...I 
>contend this is caused by the liberal laws that allow bums (that's right, 
>I don't use the Left code: "homeless") to sleep or panhandle anywhere 
>they damned well please.  Does anyone remember the shame it used to be to 
>have to beg for your meal?  Not anymore; the government subsidizes 
>"homeless shelters."

Again, what is your alternative? To shoot them? Put them in jail?

Fine, let's change the name "homeless shelter" to "jail" and then Mr.
Murphy may get on with his smug life.

You don't think these people are ashamed to beg for meals?

I hope I run into you the day YOU stumble and reach out for some help,
I'll ask you if you have no shame and walk on.

What is your point?

Tossing around phrases like ``liberal laws'' does not point towards
any better solution. You merely seem to reveal you have bogeymen in
your head, magic labels which control you beyond rational thought.

>Does anyone remember the shame you'd feel for accepting subsidized school 
>lunches?

Remember? What are you talking about. No, I don't remember, I never
had to accept subsidized school lunches.

Who is your bogeyman now? Hungry children?

Do you also kick small puppies and blame them for the ills of the
world?

Flash: Brian Murphy discovers what's wrong with our society -- Hungry
children being fed. Let 'em starve says Murphy, then we will live in
heaven on earth!

>At such a young age, we're teaching our kids that the government will 
>provide - we don't NEED a family.  We're ENTITLED to expect a helping 
>hand and that we needn't take responsibility for our own blunders.

Obviously you've never had to rely on the govt for these things or
else you would know that it is so miserable you'd pray with every
breath to get back on your own feet.

Somehow I doubt that starving 6 year olds to death is going to produce
model citizens.

>I believe the Right's answer to Mr. Linoff's plea to "support" his 
>various concerns about unwanted pregnancies, unwanted children, or how to 
>minimize these conditions is the correct answer.  The Right will suggest 
>we remove sex education from school, we not distribute condoms therein, 
>and that we leave the teaching of morals where it more properly belongs - 
>within the environment of a caring, loving family - which family ideally 
>consists of two parents of the opposite sex, thank you.

What are you babbling about?

How will any of this get the homeless off the street?

What sort of voodoo do you expect lies inside one of those little
condom packages that it is capable of destroying society?

It's like listening to some pre-historic person analyze modern society
from the point of view of totems and fetishes and maudlin nostalgia
for some imagined, atavistic world which does not seem to exist.

Nostalgia will not cure this planet. I'd put my money on condoms for
easing more problems, given the choice of two.

>Now, then, I understand that the pendulum has swung to the Left where the 
>Left still believes in Utopia and that there is no consequences of 
>stupidity

It is apparent from your entire post that there is no consequence for
stupidity.

Don't flail at the left for showing mercy to the stupid, your very
survival depends on it from what I can see.

>I contend 
>that within a generation, a society led by the Right would quickly make 
>them understand that the government will not be so quick to ride to the 
>rescue by making their baby magically disappear.  At that point, they 
>might take responsibility for preventing it in the first place without 
>the government's or school's prodding.

I love this twist, "not be so quick to ride to the rescue..."

What you REALLY mean is, send in the government thugs with truncheons
and guns to make sure they don't get abortions. That's what making
something illegal involves, right?

Who do you think you are kidding?

YOU are the one who does not want to take any responsibility.

It's so obvious from your post that it's astounding you can look
yourself in the mirror.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: ne.politics