Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:48 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Rules are worthless if you won't enforce them. There are good, public health reasons to have those rules. Whether or not some other idiot in some other category is doing some stupid-assed thing is a red herring. These two children broke a rule that any Christian school (and any decent parent) would find unacceptable. And there should be consequences. And trust me - I've been in enough schools and brought my kids to enough schools to know about what they make you sign and how they make "the rules" obvious for anyone who cares to check out.


Meta: For a man who claims to lean toward Libertarian views, you certainly believe in lots of rules.
Not judging, mind, you, just pointing that out.

BTW:
I stumbled upon this this morning.
I knew we had a lot of Political parties in America, and some of them were strange, but I never new HOW strange!

Environmental Nazis?
Witches?
Stalinists who advocate armed takeover?
Only in America!

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
8O

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Meta wrote:

For a man who claims to lean toward Libertarian views, you certainly believe in lots of rules.

Last time I checked, children and teenagers below 18 couldn't vote. And while they like to think they know everything and rule the world, it's merely an illusion. ;)

It's children, Meta. And you know damn well you'd freak if you knew your daughter was doing.... stuff. Right?

Once out of the house and earning their own keep, they're free to screw up their lives to their hearts' content. Hopefully by then we've sent them on their way with sound body, mind, and spirit. Easier said than done...

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"You too are getting emotionally hijacked here, and in doing so you are feeding the prejudices of people who think you are diseased or defective. You, sir, are implying that it's fine for 2 children to have sex with each other."

Hijacked? Not at all. You like that concept so much you seem to see it everywhere. As it turns out, my emotional investment in this thread is nil. I merely proposed almost any parent on earth would be less upset if their HS senior had sex with another HS senior rather than some much older predator, in contrast to your claim that underage + underage is no better than underage + older. If you're reading anything gay into that or more to the point aren't able to see that its generally true, YOU may have been hijacked. By what I can't say.

"And if you've ever dealt with adolescents (I don't think you've had the pleasure; I've done it for years...)"

Not terribly. There were some rule testers (some 17) in the karate class I taught ten semesters of... perhaps older than this high school student but then perhaps a little more liberated being away from home and with free access to ethanol. And I've worked with pregnant kids as young as 13 on peds and OB, some teenagers in jail (one of whom gave himself a penile piercing with a nail and then inserted foreign objects into the organ to control the resulting infection--anyone want to hear any more?). And recently dealt with a 19 year old 15 year old in the ICU whose diabetes care unraveled because she's too embarassed to use insulin in front of her friends. But overall, not much. I don't expect to ever raise kids. So if you want you can discount my opinion on any of these matters as long as I live.

"And if it was my daughter and she was within an hour of "age", I'd expect the school to enforce the rules."

Well, that's your way. I imagine you'd be in the minority on that. You know how many disrupted lives we'd have if we went off the deep in every time a minor had sex? Have you looked at the rates of sexual activity these days? No, I'm not saying its wise, so don't start. I'm saying you can't disrupt the lives of half our high school students, the majority of whom turn out just fine, underage sex or no underage sex. Most parents would look at an incident an hour before "the age," and say, no big freaking legal deal. This is why: let's say that kid was born at 12:01 AM and was literally an hour short of 18 years, legally and biologically. And some other kid who was born at 10pm and so would be 17 for most of her birthday, but was "18" legally at 12:01 am the morning of that birthday, so would be able to legally have sex. This is what we call BS / technicality, and most adults can see the complexities beyond the little details in the law, many parts of which are but semi rational, and react rationally despite them. Of course here I'm dealing with the rare issue of the nearly 18 year old child, but let's assume we're talking about a 16 year old.

You want to suggest I'm feeding antigay stereotypes by proposing its not the end of the world if that kid has sex? That's absurd. First, I'm not suggesting they have gay sex, or sex with an adult, or even that they have sex, I'm just saying let's not freak out. This has nothing at all with gay stereotypes. The only relevant related issue was that -- as an adult in the longest running contemporary relationship that started at age 18 I've ever heard of (6 monogamous years) in Virginia, home of paleolithic and discriminatory Crimes Against Nature laws for most of my 8 years of education there -- I racked up enough offenses to put me in jail 20 lifetimes and a trillion dollars in fine debt. What would you tell me about how the law is the law as it pertains to CAN laws, had the SCOTUS not tossed this garbage legislation on the curb a few years ago?

Second, you'll see by my login name I'm still in "Boston," because I haven't bothered to change my location. Well, in Boston, the age of consent is 16 and so this individual would be free to choose to have sex. Are we really going to freak out (as hypothetical parents) in one state and not another? Parental concern more often has to do with our perceptions of the kid's readiness to choose, not state law. Some how I think you'd be upset it your kids had sex at 16 or 17 or 18 for that matter, whether you lived in Boston at the moment or not. Yes, the law is the law but c'mon, parents care more about their kids than state law as far as private lives are concerned.

Third, we let kids pilot 2 ton vehicles at 75 mph at this age. Are we to believe its really riskier that they might have sex? Bring some statistics on leading causes of death in adolescents if you want to answer affirmatively. Especially since we're talking about the least risky sex, the lesbian kind. Around this time, we let our kids sign up to fight for wars designed by a bunch of privileged suits and risk coming home in a half dozen pieces. Is this a proportionate timing of judgement development and age? At 17 you can't have sex and at 18 you can take a round in the eye for uncle sam?

Fourth, despite your claims to the contrary, you do not believe the law is the law and we should follow what it says. Not entirely. You're a proponent of speed and (here I'm guessing, so correct me if I err) I would guess you've crossed the posted legal speed limit while driving enough separate times to accumulate a hefty bill, only some of it paid, and perhaps enough to warrant loss of your license, if all incidents had been documented and prosecuted fully. Would you write a check to the state and fork over your license if your child pointed out that YOU were promoting that she have her college career jeopardized by an arbitrary age limit for consenting to sex? Would you propose that Bush serve time or do community service if he was feeling particularly evangelical and admitted almost certain violations in the alcohol and cocaine genre? Maybe he should have been kept out of office? Why weren't you against him when he was running--because he wasn't caught snorting?

How about pot? What if it WERE legal? Would you let your kids smoke it? In other words, do you make your own rules or do you get a book of right and wrong from the state?

How about medical decisions? This teen would be allowed to say she didn't want blood and would rather die of bleeding if she were injured or something... or she could consent to open heart or brain surgery... and we're to pretend this is a lesser issue than choosing to be sexual before the state age of consent?

I'm really just saying these things are somewhat complicated. I know that your point is that these are adolescents and they need some black and white, but judgement is not a light switch. People need to be treated like adults and practice making decisions, with support, from an age appropriate to the person, which is going to vary, and depending on the seriousness of the act, which obviously varies too.

I don't have any kids but I'd want my kid to be honest and open with me so I'd make it plain that if he or she were thinking about having sex at 17 (or 19 and on) they could talk about it with me )and I'd refer them to some useful resources). If they were in a stable relationship, had heard my objections, weighed them; planned to take appropriate precautions, understood the risks and knew what they'd do if something happened; were honest with the potential partner and weren't using each other and felt like they were in love, and declined to follow my advice they hold off, I wouldn't want my kid to think I resented them, or planned to punish them, because then they'd just do it and not tell me or benefit from my advice. Whom would that serve? I sure as heck wouldn't give them the impression I supported jeopardizing their educational future by punishing them to the fullest and I sure as heck wouldn't alert the police because the law is the law... (besides, they'd just laugh at me).

I would also like to point out that abstinence only training has not been shown to improve sexual behaviors. What it does do is reduce the likelihood a condom will be used because the good kids will be shamed into not having one. And how is that loving our kids? I'd be showing my kid my health and my body, and my heart, are precious to me by example, and giving them a lot of information and support rather than insisting they follow state law.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ian wrote:

I'm saying you can't disrupt the lives of half our high school students


We're not talking about "half our high school students", Ian. Parents send their kids to private school because they don't want them to have the experience of "half our high school students." That's the whole point of private school - so that students get a "better" experience than they would in public school. Why else would parents today spend as much per grade from K through 12 as they do for many colleges?
Ian wrote:

Most parents would look at an incident an hour before "the age," and say, no big freaking legal deal.

We aren't talking about "most parents", Ian. We are talking about parents who for reasons of their own put a sizeable amount of financial and time resources into the education of their kids. Many of these parents choose this over using their hard-earned dollars for their own material pleasure. So... Do you think these parents want to be paying all this money to a school that allows students to engage in illegal activity? Get real!

And you can say you would do this or that with your kids, Ian. But that all changes the day your own flesh and blood is born. That isn't logical, Ian, it's BIOlogical. This isn't some random kid you treat or counsel in clinic.

And you are presuming a lot about how a parent would or would not educate their kids if they discouraged them from having sex before developing a bit of maturity. That's hardly enlightened.

I can't see why you would make light of children having sex. And yes, that's exactly what you are doing.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I remember having a conversation with someone very dear to me about these forums. This person is a frequent poster, and in my view writes some of the most thought-provoking and carefully-written stuff on these WebPages. (Personally I think I go over the top here and there, but I usually do so for effect. Not always a positive effect though... :oops: )

In any case, I remember this individual posting how they sometimes saw themselves as being a bit of a "fuddy duddy" when chatting about topics here. Why? Well to some extent I think many people take unusual positions that they themselves may never ascribe to if they were personally involved in a situation. We're not talking theory, folks, we're talking you have skin in the game. When you actually do have a stake in the outcome, it's amazing how "straight and narrow" the response can be.

But if I have no dog in the fight... If it's just theory... If for instance I'm talking about that Bad Guy (of doom) who I might meet in fantasy space, my pants will never be moistened and I'll perform marvelous feats and things most definitely will turn in favor of my enlightened way... Well of COURSE my radical proposition is brilliant! :roll:

Meanwhile in a case like this where for instance yours truly lives the situation and has peers who as I type are dealing with teen sex issues, well let me tell you this. It ain't easy.

And this is most definitely a serious subject. We're not talking about what happens amongst consenting adults, folks. These are children and adolescents who have yet to go to college, who have yet to live a life on their own, who have yet to pay rent or make a mortgage payment, who have yet to experience a life-altering disease, and who have yet to deal with the situation of passion and logic colliding in the real world. And many of these kids can't complete basic homework assignments or bring their books to school. We expect them to use protection with the skill of a trained clinician?? And we have (ahem) scenario training for this? :lol:

And of course even when Person A and Person B are doing all the right things, stuff happens. Fuilds get exchanged. Human and non-human life find a way...

And when it's your baby, you DO have skin in the game. And when it's your personal friend or your sister or brother, you feel like you DO have skin in the game. And when you know how easily and how quickly a kid can really change the course of his/her life over something that they'll get lots of opportunity to do more of when they are ready and can pull up a Plan B if "stuff" happens...

It's sobering.

So yea, I'm a pain-in-the-ass, stick-in-the-mud, fuddy duddy here. As I tell number 1 son, "Right now I'm not your friend first. I am your father first. And I have a job to do."

But there ARE right ways to play that role. And they are as many as there are individuals and opinions.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Some stuff worth considering. This is in response to Ian and Meta who are minimizing the effect that a parent can have in regard to this situation.

- Bill
Quote:
Teens Say Parents Most Influence Their Sexual Decisions
from Press Release TeenPregnancy.org


Parents continue to underestimate the influence they have over their children's decisions about sex, according to new survey data released by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. While the majority of teens say parents most influence their sexual decisions, parents believe that teens' friends are most influential.

The survey also reveals that most teens (88%) say that it would be easier for them to postpone sexual activity and avoid teen pregnancy if they were able to have more open, honest conversations about these topics with their parents, yet nearly one in four (23%) of teens say they have never discussed sex, contraception, or pregnancy with their parents. Six out of ten teens (59%) surveyed also said that their parents are their role models for healthy, responsible relationships.

And one in five young adolescents (aged 12-14) report they have been at a party in the past six months with boys and girls where there were no adults in the house.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Quote:
The Dos and Don’ts of Sex Education
From Denise Witmer,
Your Guide to Parenting of Adolescents.


Do allow your child to take sex education courses in school. You may not agree with everything that is taught, but you can use what they learn in school as a starting point.

Do not harp, embarrass, or nag your child about their sex education class. Use teachable moments. Bringing it up at the dinner table may not be a good idea either.

Do keep the lines of communication open with your child. You’ll need to discuss tough topics from time to time. If you and your teen are used to having conversations on a daily basis, it will be easier to talk about anything you need to.

Do not think that what your child learns about sex at school is enough. It isn’t. Children today are bombarded with negative and inaccurate sexual images through the media and their peers. Be there to help keep your child on the right track.

Do speak to your child’s school about what they are teaching and the sexual education curriculum. Ask to see the text book and go over the lesson plans if you are concerned.

Do not argue with your child over matters of opinion. Our sexuality has some gray areas and each generation has its own opinions. Respect your child’s opinions. Enjoy the fact that they are growing up and have the ability to have opinions, even when they don’t agree with your own.

Do keep in touch with your child’s sex education teacher, but do not be too much of a PITA. It won’t be easy, but parenting never is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
"So... Do you think these parents want to be paying all this money to a school that allows students to engage in illegal activity? Get real!"

This is where you differ with how you would manage your kids from how I would manage the kids I would never have. I would not pay my school to supervise my kid's private lives in a time and place that has nothing to do with school. IMHO, a school has no business parenting outside of school unless that's part of a contract the parents entered into. And that gets back to the matter of the contract I mentioned long ago. I do NOT feel I would appreciate a school investigating my kid and expelling them for smoking tobacco, speeding, or any of the other things I would consider between myself, the kid, and any LEO that happened to be involved. (I would expect, however, a school to take an interest in such crimes and actions as cheating, theft, assault, or doing those things at school or in a context that would affect the school). Now Bill may say that people who send their kids to private school would feel differently. Fine, and this isn't worth arguing about: it all goes back to the agreement with the private school. If you want a school to investigate and expell your kid for smoking at home after school or breaking the speed limit like everyone else in the country, under the guise that only a no-good school would tolerate a law breaking student, then fine, make a contract with the school. I supported that approach with my first comments on this subject.

Bill, your major contention is that I can't know how I'd feel about my kids having sex underage because I have no kids. I haven't had any kids, true, but I've been in love, and I know what it's like to fear for the life or health or wellbeing of someone who's the center of your world. And you may have missed the bigger points that I've made in that regard:

1) If my kid knows that I'll help a school disrupt their education and jeopardize their future if they have sex underage (or with the wrong gendered person), then they're not going to ask me any questions or seek my help. And *I* believe that would do more harm than good. This is precisely why psychiatrists have the responsi/ability to keep matters between them and their patients private barring extreme circumstances. Feel free to pass this off as an idle concern of a childless guy, but believe me, lots of people with children understand this and lots of people with children had a hand in those laws.

In this case, your concerns about disease and pregnancy might be more likely to become reality if you discourage your kids from discussing sex with you and asking you about it by making it clear certain punishment would follow using the information in practice.

2) I didn't say that I didn't care if my kids had sex. I said my concern was not the letter of the law but my kid's well being. Case in point: my little brother is overall bright but has certain learning disabilities. He is not good with directions and travel plans and he had difficulty shifting and paying attention to the road at once. This is why my parents, who obviously didn't want him driving illegally at 15, didn't want him driving legally at 16. They care about the kid more than the law. Another good case: while I was 18 when I met my first boyfriend, my parents had zero concerns about the fact that I would be breaking state law if I had the kind of relationship the majority of my heterosexual peers were having. They were concerned about my emotional and physical health (although they needn't have been, I appreciated the concern nonetheless). That's because they knew the state law was mean spiritied, unfair, and highly unlikely to be investigated or prosecuted.

All I'm asking is that you don't propose that parents who don't turn good kids over to the state or the school just because they broke a law are somehow inferior to or less caring than the parents who raise their kids as well as possible at home, or in public schools, or who send their kids to private school for other reasons than having a nun with a ruler present at all times.

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It's amazing to me how groups of people can look at other groups of people, and totally not get what they are about. But if it is amazing, it certainly isn't uncommon.

Meta wrote:

For a man who claims to lean toward Libertarian views, you certainly believe in lots of rules.
Not judging, mind, you, just pointing that out.

This I find to be an interesting comment. For all that has been discussed here, I'm surprised to hear this comment thrown on the table.

Take a note of the below. Emphasis is my own.
Quote:
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that favors individual rights, private property rights, and free markets. Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to act as they wish as long as they do not initiate or threaten the use of physical force or fraud against another person or their property. Libertarians oppose most government intervention in private affairs, except in the defense of individual rights.

Libertarians possess an extreme antipathy towards infringement of civil rights such as restrictions on free expression (e.g., speech, press, or religious practice), prohibitions on voluntary association, or encroachments on persons or property except as a result of due process to establish or punish criminal behavior. As such, libertarians oppose any type of censorship (even for offensive speech), restrictions on gang membership (as distinct from gang violence), or pre-trial forfeiture of property. Furthermore, most libertarians reject the distinction between political and commercial speech or association often used to protect one type of activity and not the other.
- Wikipedia.com

Thus a libertarian may choose to associate with a group of people with narrow beliefs. A libertarian may choose to be a highly-disciplined individual. An libertarian may have and preach strong feelings towards certain actions, and share those beliefs with others. (They just would prefer to keep government out of it.) And one thing that should be readily apparent is that libertarianism cannot exist in a healthy way without extremely strong education and the development of a set of personal ethics that makes it possible to survive where there is no nanny state to save you if you totally screw up.

A libertarian then doesn't necessarily let an uneducated and underdeveloped child/adolescent do what (s)he pleases. And a libertarian most definitely doesn't want government telling them how to raise their kids.
Ian wrote:

This is where you differ with how you would manage your kids from how I would manage the kids I would never have.

You make me chuckle, Ian. ;)
Ian wrote:

I would not pay my school to supervise my kid's private lives in a time and place that has nothing to do with school.

And that's your prerogative.

But your definition of "school" and my definition of "school" are entirely different. I want to send my kids to a place where they get a body/mind/spirit education of my choosing. Not just any one, mind you, but one of MY choosing. And I support the right of others to do the same.

Ever tried to teach your own kid martial arts, Ian? I have. It's not as easy as you think. Number 1 son has rejected me as an instructor, but has managed to gravitate towards the best wresting coach in the state - at his own school. Fine by me! 8) It isn't necessarily my job to teach each and every lesson to my kids. I just make sure that SOMEBODY teaches those lessons. Smart people learn to delegate, and are never insulted if someone else is better at doing something than they are. Division of labor is a very good thing.
Ian wrote:

IMHO, a school has no business parenting outside of school unless that's part of a contract the parents entered into.

You argue best when you argue my point, Ian.

Parents who send their kids to Christian schools are more than likely entering a contract (of some sort) with expectations on the "outcomes" end. So if you believe in outcomes-based education, then you'd like to see the students living "Christian" lifestyles.

Whatever that is...

And WHATEVER it is isn't my business, so long as they are operating within the law. And from everything I see here, I have no reason to believe that they aren't.

You don't have to like the contracts that certain people enter in for the benefit of THEIR OWN children. And I suspect they wouldn't be seeking your approval. That's their prerogative.
Ian wrote:

I do NOT feel I would appreciate a school investigating my kid and expelling them for smoking tobacco, speeding, or any of the other things I would consider between myself, the kid, and any LEO that happened to be involved.

Funny you should say that, Ian. Perhaps you've missed out on a thread on my forum.

.......... Hokie pride?

Here's a fellow who was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (served alcohol and other "favors" to young girls), reckless driving, possession of marijuana (while driving recklessly), more speeding and driving without a license after having plea-bargained an easy sentence, and finally was caught brandishing a weapon. He was the quarterback of the Virginia Tech football team, and was a Heisman Trophy candidate next year.

Only problem was, the school banned him from participating on the football team.

Do you think the school had a right to kick him permanently from the team, effectively ending his reason for going to the school in the first place? (To set him up for a high paying job in the NFL) Of course they did. And why? Because the behavior of Marcus Vick outside school and off the football field reflected poorly on the University. If the school had not taken action, Vick could have affected the value of a degree at that academic institution.

So when a Christian school has a student engaged in "un-Christian behavior" outside of school (whatever that is...), don't you think they would be stupid not to punish the student in some way? After all, that kind of behavior affects the reputation of the school, and reduces the market value of that highly-specialized education and the degree that comes with it.
Ian wrote:

If my kid knows that I'll help a school disrupt their education and jeopardize their future if they have sex underage (or with the wrong gendered person), then they're not going to ask me any questions or seek my help. And *I* believe that would do more harm than good.

You are entitled to that point of view, Ian. But in the case of Marcus Vick, many have felt that he got too many free passes. And this then led to a series of events that likely will land his butt in jail. Too bad... He just threw literally millions of dollars down the toilet. And because more than a few people let this young man down in his PRIVATE education on and off the field, the government now is about to step in and give him a PUBLIC education - behind bars. Oops!

But you are free to raise the kids you'll never have in a manner of your choosing. That's not my business.
Ian wrote:

In this case, your concerns about disease and pregnancy might be more likely to become reality if you discourage your kids from discussing sex with you and asking you about it by making it clear certain punishment would follow using the information in practice.

This I find highly insulting, Ian. You are presuming I don't discuss sex with my kids because my views are different from yours. How narrow-minded! How prejudiced your thinking! How uninformed!

To wit... Last night at Ruby Tuesdays, we had a dinnertime conversation with family (wife, 13 and 7-year-old sons) about why the name "Buster Hyman" was funny. (We are likely to get a dog from a fellow with the last name of Hyman.) I made number 1 son explain to us all why it was funny. He got most of the way there. He understood all the parts and when they disappeared.

This, BTW, from a family who would choose to discourage their kids from having sex as a minor. We NEVER have any fun, you know. My kids are sooo uninformed. And of course the only place they have to go for information is from kids on the street and such... :wink:

You'd be surprised at the kinds of mature conversations number 1 son and I have about choices, responsibilities, empathy, and consequences. And the threat of consequences for poor choices doesn't seem to stop him from talking to us or to his teachers.

Imagine that! Must be an anomaly... ;)

Ian wrote:

Case in point: my little brother...

Focus on your own story a bit, Ian. The more you do so, the more you'll understand what I'm trying to communicate. :wink:

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Bill Glasheen wrote:
To wit... Last night at Ruby Tuesdays, we had a dinnertime conversation with family (wife, 13 and 7-year-old sons) about why the name "Buster Hyman" was funny.


You're right, ...It's not funny.

It's FREAKING HYSTERICAL!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'd say a 13 and 17 year old boy laughing at that name is quite normal. I'm 36 and I'd atomize my cherry coke if someone said that name in conversation.
:lol:

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
My brotther-in-law thinks it's child abuse when we discuss such things with 13 and 7 (seven, not seventeen) year-old sons.

I'm funny in this way. I'll take my kids to see Saving Private Ryan or Jarhead, but forbid Adam Sandler movies from entering the house. To me, I'm opposed to gratuitous sex and violence, and the celebration of stupidity. I'd a lot rather have my kids see and understand an unpleasant view of the real world, and have me there to discuss with them after having done so.

Note - WITH parents, and not alone. That's what parents are for - to guide the little ones into a world that isn't always as nice as we'd like.
Meta wrote:

I'm 36 and I'd atomize my cherry coke if someone said that name in conversation.

It's a great, drug-free way to clear the sinuses!

Image

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 2117
Location: Virginia
Wow Bill,

I can't beieve your little one is 7 now??? It seems like yesterday you were making you #1 son sit in seiza facing a mirror for using his superior size against the little toddler.

:|

I'm bowing out of these discussions on this and dead bodies. Got too much going on right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Bill Glasheen wrote:
My brotther-in-law thinks it's child abuse when we discuss such things with 13 and 7 (seven, not seventeen) year-old sons.

I'm funny in this way. I'll take my kids to see Saving Private Ryan or Jarhead, but forbid Adam Sandler movies from entering the house. To me, I'm opposed to gratuitous sex and violence, and the celebration of stupidity. I'd a lot rather have my kids see and understand an unpleasant view of the real world, and have me there to discuss with them after having done so.



Meta: I have often asked my fellow humans (and co-workers) a rather now infamous loaded question which I shall now pose here;

If,...in some bizarre altered reality, you were forced to make a choice between having your (under 18 ) kids watching "Faces of death" 1 through 50, OR a garden variety XXX adult movie, which would you rather have them view?

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17068
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Meta wrote:

which would you rather have them view?

Whichever one gives them the most accurate view of the world the way it really is rather than the fantasy world that Hollywood foists upon us.

All things being equal, I go for the XXX any day of the week.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 1205
Bill Glasheen wrote:

All things being equal, I go for the XXX any day of the week.

- Bill


Meta:
Rats!
I wanted you to choose the "Faces of Death!"
-Then I could have gone off about how Americans value and accept death and mayhem over the act of love, joy and procreation.
But NOOOooooO!
YOU had to choose the one I agreed with!
:lol:

Surprisingly, of the people I have posed the question to, most choose to have the kids watch the Death.

Further evidence for my suspicion that despite porno, porno everywhere, America appears to be a very sexually repressed society.

_________________
There's a bit of Metablade in all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group