To play or not to play. That is the question.

Hi, Ill be playing devils advocate for a few minutes.I just want to address the issue of "rolemodels" & what you can learn from them. Too often we forget that some people are actually smart enough to look at Mr. Bonds & other "role models" (like high school football jocks---what?!) & realize that everything they says is not the right thing for them. Its called making a decision. In the case of minors it is the parents job to make the decision for their child. It doesnt always happen, but thats another subject.

*Barry implies that it is the athlete's choice, and as such, involves no one else's opinion. What the misguided Mr. Bonds fails to take into account however, is their status as very visible, public role models. What message does he send...*

(begin lecture)

It is the individuals choice to do whatever one wants to ones self.
Message? You could take many different lessons from Mr. Bonds who IS a multimillion dollar athelete- who may have used steroids. (Even if youre a minor. People under 18 do not automatically follow other people.)

1)Steroids may have helped him to get where he is.
2)He may be ruining his body & he may be ok with that.
3)Im not ok with that for me- regardless of anyones opinion especially some overpaid sportstar who may or may not use them.
4) I am ok with that-i want to use steroids & ruin my body so i can live rich & maybe die young.
Choices must be made by everyone at some time or another in regard to some thing (substance in this case) or another. The age at which the decision comes may depend on the issue. It is an individual, or for minors- their parents, choice to make. When people reach the legal adult age- Its all up to you! You wanna shrink up the jewells on the juice? Go ahead. You wanna eat only organic veggies? Go ahead. The consequences are yours to accept - legal or health or otherwise.

(end lecture)

Wow- bit of a rant there. It just bothers me when people start pointing fingers for setting a bad example. I just dont like the idea of a "bad example". New information is constantly being thrown on the table. How a person uses that information is up to them.

I love this country.

 

From a medical stand-point, I must interject.....BB may have the dough to do as he wills and get away with it, but too often I have seen the results of steroids, alchohol, and drugs. More often than not these folks have not made it big, and have no way of paying, not to mention the fact that they've hosed themselves physically and mentally for life....and most of these folks are young, vibrant souls(numerous jocks)whose families and/or society have to pick up the pieces, and try to convince said individual that they still have something to live for, so they don't go out and cap themselves.....seen too many of those, too.....

Who wants the soapbox next?!

FLOL!

 

Ok, I'll run with that. Life is about choice. There are reasons (allegedly) that minors are not allowed to drive until age 16, vote until age 18 and drink until age 21. The supposed logic behind these societal dictums is that the young, inexperienced, ignorant minor is incapable of making the self-aware decisions necessary to act with impunity in regards to the level of RESPONSIBILITY afforded to them. In theory, until the age of 16, a person does not possess the necessary facility required to safely operate a vehicle. In theory, until the age of 18, a person does not possess the necessary intuition to cast a vote based on an informed decision. In theory, until the age of 21, a person does not possess the necessary enlightenment to understand the effects of alcohol. Society has placed these restraints and deterrents on itself as a method of self preservation and sustentation. Why aren't 12 year olds allowed to vote? Well, take a moment to consider the ramifications of Justin Timberlake as President, and the reasons should be crystal clear. Sure, kids can drink alcohol in Europe as soon as they are old enough to see over the counter of the bar. Europe however, has a different culture bred through several millennia of heritage. Relatively speaking, the USA is still a wet-behind-the-ears babe, trying to define itself. Our society was founded on the premise of Do Your Own Thing, under the guise of the Bill of Rights. Our society was also born out of Rebellion, and as a result this nature is inherent in our evolution as a culture. Sure, not all kids are like sheep, mindlessly following whatever stimuli are placed in front of them. But children are impressionable, regardless. It is this very impressionability which becomes the RESPONSIBILITY of those in positions of influence to take into account. The finger is not being pointed at Mr. Bonds as being a "bad example" per se. Perhaps the finger of Hypocrisy is being pointed in his diretion and that of other "multimillion dollar athlete(s)" due to his IRRESPONSIBILITY as a public figure. Take the cue from Uncle Ben, "With great power, comes great RESPONSIBILITY". That's what it all boils down to. If Barry wants to retire from the spotlight and go home to shoot up in the corner, then hey, more power to him. If however, he chooses to remain in the public forum, then he has a RESPONSIBILITY to the public, as such. Adults may be able to disregard his opinions and make their own informed decisions, but a child may not be quite as mature, nor as fortunate to be able to make that distinction. I'm not trying to pick on Barry, and I'm not trying to judge him. He was just an example that I noticed recently in publication. If just one child interprets his words as license to do 'roids, as their right to "choose", then he is just as accountable as the child's parents or the pusher themselves. Due to the inherent nature of our capitalistic, republic society, people with higher incomes do receive benefits that others do not. Whether these benefits take the form of physical luxuries, or opportunities, they nonetheless exist. As members of the "privileged" class, multimillion dollar athletes, hollywood superstars, corporate CEO's share a RESPONSIBILITY to society for being in their advantageous positions. I can readily accept and acknowledge that they may have had to work extremely hard to achieve their status, but that does not diminish, in fact it increases their RESPONSIBILITY to society. Until we achieve the Rodenberrian social Utopia where money no longer governs our actions, it is up to the privileged powerful to take the less fortunate under their wing and nurture them. As human beings we all owe it to "Be excellent to each other".

On a note that is somewhat related to this thread, not everyone is meant to play football, or sports in general. Walking away from a no-win situation, no matter how much "heart" you have, is sometimes the best thing to do. The reason that the Rudy Ruettigers of the world inspire us is because they are so few and far between. Rudy lived in a different day,

 

Okay, it's been established that I am the Historian, but I believe we have a new member to the council, the Counselor, or how about Elder. What else do they call the big thinker in a group?

 

The Butthead?

 

Interesting points SS. First let me agree with you that everything is not for everyone. Its just not realistic. Some are meant for the spotlight & some are meant for the bench. Thats life.
My disagreement is in the area of resposibility. I dont think anyone is responsible to me or my future childern to present me with a good example, or even a bad example. YOU are responsible for YOU- thats it. It MAY be great if everyone did & said 'whats best for the children'. But i dont think thats what choice or free will is about. Children are the RESPONSIBILITY of their parents & no one else. Unfortunately, many parents do not accept that responsibilty & as tim mentioned- many kids pay a horrible price. It is very sad & unfortunate, but thats life too. Many people step up to take up the slack for the idiots that dont protect their children, or teach they're children well enough to think for themselves. I think that is great, but its a job these people take on out of the goodness of their heart, not because they are obligated to do so. Mr Bonds could be cool enough to tell kids not to do 'roids, but hes not. So- hes an A**hole (amoung many). I still dont think he is obligated to justify, explain, or even discuss his personal decisions with the public. If he decides to do so, parents beware. Some people are easily influenced & people like atheletes do not have to change their ways because someone decides they want to be "like mike" (to add another name to the mix). One lesson I hope everyone learns- dont believe everything you hear, read, or see. QUESTION EVERTHING!!! Whether it comes from Mr Bonds, Mr Jordan, Mr Bush, Mr Teacher, Mr Dad- whatever. Take everything as information & use that information as you wish. If you doom yourself, we can all learn from that.
"who is the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

 

I have to whole-heartedly disagree with the concept that we, as human beings, are not responsible for our actions as they may or may not affect other human beings. When I make a choice, no matter what the venue, I have to be conscious and aware of the potential consequences. If I am running late for work and choose to speed down the road at 100 miles per hour, I risk not only damaging my car, but injuring myself or possibly others. When I tell some guy to kiss off, when he cuts me off in the turn lane, I risk having my head shot off by the crackpot with a shotgun. When I yell at my girlfriend for not wanting to see Star Wars a 10th time with me, I risk hurting her feelings and possibly pushing her away. When I spend hours on the boards instead of doing my job, I risk letting down my clients, my coworkers, and getting fired. When I spend half of my paycheck to beef up my SW collection, I may not be able to afford food, or gas, or rent. How do I explain that I can't afford to pay for dinner with my girlfriend, because instead I chose to drop all my cash on action figures? The chances we take with the choices we make. I think it was Newton who postulated that, "each action has an equal and opposite reaction". My actions have consequences. I mentioned high school funerals in a previous post. Two of the funerals were due to suicide. I wonder if someone, maybe even myself had perhaps said or done something differently for those two guys, if they might have been able to find some reason for living. Instead, we will never know. What kind of message did Clinton send to the world by playing hide the cigar with Monica Looselipski? What kind of choices did countless people make to so piss off Osama Bin Laden, that he would retaliate on 09/11? Or what of the terrible choice that Osama himself made? Was he acting responsibly? When Firestone cut corners in tire production, what kind of consequences should they be held responsible for? Sure, parents should safeguard their kids' interests, and I suppose that many do not. Perhaps if the Klebolds had been more involved in Dylan's life, things would have been different on April 20. Who can say? Maybe if Hitler's art teacher hadn't discouraged his early efforts, history might be reflected a bit differently today. This extends far beyond simply "the children" we are all responsible for humanity. If not us, then who?

 

Actually, I'm all in favour of any individual voting, driving, owning automatic weapons, doing drugs, alchohol, steroids......so long as they never impact anyone else by their actions......to destroy oneself utterly is the ultimate personal choice, but to take someone down with you, or to impact another's life irresponsibly is outrageous. I have always believed that you teach ethical behavior from day one(and that's not morality, sociality, and/or politics), then let everyone do as they please so long as they don't impact another; this way at the earliest age, all persons know what is essentially right and wrong, and truely value the rights of others alongside their own. And, if they don't take the lessons to heart.....as soon as they abuse those open-fielded rights, HAMMER THEM without mercy. It would become evident to all very quickly that the line is very narrow, and it is not at all grey.....of course, you would have to do away with all lawyers, since they abuse the laws to allow the misconduct of others and dissuade the justices and juries from true righteous actions. In some South Pacific tribes, nothing is held back, and total freedom of action and thought is allowed until one of the tribal members hurts another....then they are killed and eaten. Brutal...I think not.....from what I've read, they haven't eaten another of their tribe for decades. Are we really so civilised? For all our vaunted forward-thinking, this is the best we can come up with?! Rights without honourable conduct is just as bad as no rights under a dictatorship, or what we have now, where money and/or power clears up nearly all matters to the satisfaction of the guilty(not the victim), parents are not held accountable for the actions of their children, social norms such as driving allow for conduct that kills, literally, on the largest of scales, and the public and/or the system often pays the price for the misdeeds of the one while the one suffers only minimally.

All of us know what is right and what is wrong(except for the truly mentally ill).....that's not Utopia......we're just in denial, and looking for an easy out. We claim Utopia is unreachable because we don't have the backbones to demand a system that is unwaverable and truly just.....that would mean we couldn't get away with hurting others, and that might impact our precious personal rights.

Ooooo...yu forgot one, SS......

"If not now, when?!"

 

apples & oranges
driving 100 on a highway full of people directly affects other people withut giving them a choice. the choice to take drugs that do not endanger the others around you is your own. Smoking affects others , yelling affects others, and so on. getting your strength from a needle affects no one but you.
SS - Your outlook is definitely more positive than the one i am presenting as devils advocate. 'be excellent to each other'- great idea. but i am reminded of a quote - its not exactly this, but maybe you know it. " i may disagree with everything you have to say, but i defend your right to say it. " so mr bonds can say all the stupid things he wants. we can listen or ignore.

 

I would like to welcome you to this week's edition of the McLaughlin Group, today we will be discussing the ability to agree to disagree. Go. . .

 

Apples & Oranges eh? As in "juice"? As long as steroid abuse is perpetuated by the "Pros", it will find a market with the amateur, ignorant and undereducated. Mr. Bonds ignorant proclamation may unfortunately appear to some as an endorsement. Sure, kids have a choice to do drugs or not. The logic of a child however, cannot be equated with that of an adult. If their sports idol is seen as touting drugs as the second coming, why should they not believe him? Don't the results speak for themselves? Is he not living proof of their effectiveness? And no, I don't think that humanity has the collective balls to strive for Utopia. Its easy to sit back after having lived through one's youth and say, "question everything". How many of us truly felt that way and acted that way when we were young and impressionable. We probably didn't. We assimilated the culture and the environment around us, and processed our decisions based on what we felt appealed to us the most. I'm also not sure that it is possible to truly exist in this life without affecting others. Every action has a consequence. I believe the "Butterfly principle" qualifies this. I also believe that Mr. Bonds IS responsible for what comes out of his mouth, as are the rest of us. As we have clearly seen evidenced in certain threads of late, what we say can indeed have an unintentional effect on people. Sure, I don't have to listen to what he has to say, but others may not have the discerning ear that I do. Others may have dreams of sluggin' away in the majors some day, and may bow down to the Bonds mot as gospel. Anyone remember Lyle Alzado? Jim Fixx?

 

Im glad you brought up lyle alzado- he WAS my childhood hero until i heard he was a user. I made that decision as a child.
You keep going back to the affect on children-& i believe i keep saying--it is the parents job to make the decision for the child. if the parent doesnt do that- it doesnt autamatiaclly make barry or anyone else responsible. he could be a great citizen & accept that responsibilty, but he doesnt & he doesnt have to.
Im not talking about all decisions. most of the decisions we make DO affect others. What barry says may affect others, but that is beyond his control. does that mean he cant speak his mind about his own life ? no way. its called free speech.


ZOO- agree to disagree? i dont agree to that. j/k. this is good food for thought i think. i agree with alot of what SS has said. (but lets keep that hush hush ).

 

I just thought that maybe we ought to start a soapbox thread and once a week put in a volatile issue to get everyone's juices pumping. This has been very entertaining.

 

Too late AHPR, the Cheshire cat is out of the bag. Yes, I agree that parents are responsible for their children. However it is impractical to presume that they are the sole influences on the developing psyche of the adolescent. Kids are impacted by a thousand different sources on a daily basis. We used to just have to worry about what they saw on tv, or what they heard on the radio, or what they read in a magazine. The internet has opened a whole new world for a child to be led astray within. Of course, Barry can spout his opinion ad nauseum. Freedom of speech can be a gift, when excercised with what was that word...oh yeah,...RESPONSIBILITY!!! It is now unfortunate that Lyle's death may not serve as the warning that it could have and should have.

 

Time to bail. Just found out I have a flat tire on the car. Just how I wanted to start the weekend. Must be Carma. Oh well, its what I get for having an opinion. Anyone gonna catch that little Star Wars movie this weekend? I still haven't made it to the Pavillions for a digital show...

(kicks self).

Ciao.

 

I wrote out 5 diffrent posts and before I sent it changed it.

play football for the fun BRAVO and let them be who they are not who you think they should be.

 

if everything you say under the guise of 'freedom of speech' must be censored to consider others opinions-- how free are you to speak ? i thought the whole idea was to let people speak their minds & make people think for themselves. the best way to make an informed decision is to have all the information. that includes the bad stuff -like who does 'roids & who doesnt. sorry to say it but -if barry used em - they worked for him.

*it is impractical to presume that they [parents] are the sole influences on the developing psyche of the adolescent*

i couldnt agree more- there are many influences. BUT-it still remains a parents RESPONSIBILITY (not mine or barrys or anyones) to help their child process that information- those influences. to point out the good lessons & the bad ones. AGAIN- if the parent cant do that or choses not to- that kid is at a disadvantage. sad but true.
it still doesnt make it anyone elses RESPONSIBILITY. of course kids make decisions for themselves on many topics maybe they shouldnt. Are we gonna baby the world cause our kids might hear us talking? I sure hope not.
i remember growing up being told many times- "you'll understand when your older". and i think i do. so- two questions:
1) does that mean i waited & waited to become an adult only to be told what to discuss in the open cause kids might hear? &2) would we have made the same stupid mistakes if our parents had shared more information rather than assuming we couldnt grasp it?
maybe #2 cant really be answered. but maybe we should just be honest with people regardless of age & let them AND THEIR FAMILIES decide what to do with their lives. I do think if i had been told more honestly about what was going on around me, many of my decisions would have been different.

information is power.

 

*Looks at all the posts, and faints.*

Well, I'll get to reading all these posts here later or soon, depends on what happens in the next 20 minutes. Any ways, yesterday, was great at football practice! Our head coach (my former DL coach) said I had improved and that this was my best spring camp yet! Well, that gave me a much needed boost, so now I am excited about going to weight lifting at 5:30 in the morning and doing speed camp/conditioning at 7:00 in the morning!!!!!! [face_shocked]

 

Bravo, that's great! I guess all of the posting energy here made its way to you and your Head Coach via the Force and spiced things up a bit for ya. Although I am sad to hear that coaches are still following weight lifting sessions immediately with speed/conditioning exercises. I had hoped in all of my years away from football, that coaches might have wised up kinesiologically and seen the detriment of such a regimen. Oh well, certain traditions are hard to break. Glad to hear that you are inspired though, that's awesome!

Speaking of traditions that are hard to break, this whole concept that society as a whole is not responsible for the effects that it has upon a child, simply because such duties are allegedly in the job description of the parents, is in itself outdated and obsolete. It does indeed "take a village" to raise a child. I do not discount the responsibility of the parents for the child, in fact I emphasize it. Neither though can I absolve society from that shared responsibility. As human beings, we are all inherently, mutually responsible to each and every one of our cohabitants of this crazy world. This is not an issue of censoring "freedom of speech", but rather a matter of assuming responsibility for our speech, and our actions. Freedom does not grant immunity from irresponsibility. Stating one's opinion in an appropriate forum is rightfully protected as a "freedom of speech". Disseminating false, misleading or irresponsible rhetoric however, is not. Certainly, the public has the right to process any information that it sees or hears, and base their conclusions upon their own experiences and prejudices. If Clinton takes the stand and claims that extramarital sex is ok, then that is solely his opinion. People hearing that declaration will be free to judge it as they will. Based on the "freedom of speech" argument, he is allowed to voice this opinion, regardless of the mores and values of society. His right to voice the opinion however, does not necessarily make it a responsible choice to do so. "Freedom of speech" governs how I "can" or "cannot" say, but it in no ways affects what I "should" or "should not" say. The "right" of my actions will never justify any irresponsibility of them. If Barry is on the juice, and publicly denies it, then that is clearly his choice. He must grapple with his own conscience in regards to the denial. Does such a claim make him irresponsible? Possibly. If Barry denies their use, and even goes so far as to denounce their use as potentially harmful, then this too is his choice. Clearly this is a hypocritical choice, but is it any more responsible? Possibly. If Barry denies their use, and subsequently endorses them, is his choice irresponsible? Possibly. Ignorant? Most likely, but irresponsible? The ramifications of our actions are grounded not in INTENT, but in IMPACT. Maybe Barry didn't MEAN to mislead people about the effects of steroids. Perhaps that was not his INTENT. If gullible, ignorant people act based on his disclaimer though, that has an IMPACT. That is the end result of his words and deeds. After all, why shouldn't we believe him? He is a pro. Successful. Talented. Rich. If these are the "harmful" results of loading up on Androsterinone, then whoa doggie! Where can I gets me some of them little syringes? I wants me some of them fancy cars, and gold chains, and supermodels, and product endorsements! I wants mah pitcher plastered on cereal boxes and donut gems! I wants me a paycheck with more zeroes than the gross national product of Equador! Its not about "babying" the world. Its about accepting responsibility for the world. Information is power? I would take that equation to the next level and surmise that knowledge is power. Semantically speaking, I suppose that knowledge can be equated with information, but I disagree. Information is data. Data without practical application is superficial, and useless. I can be provided with information, but unless I make a conscious choice to apply that information, to make a conscious effort to assimilate and digest that in

 

Oh, I heartily disagree......my folks held heavy sway over us kids, and it was the school, and society that answered to them, and not the other way around. Our parents, even under limited family time made it perfectly clear what was expected of us, and questioned us regularly to find out what had happened at school, ect.....we were allowed to speak, but knew our place, we were respectful, educated in common-sense values, and raised with discipline and love in metered amounts, and therefore society, or the "village" had little to do with our up-bringing. I stayed away from drugs, and trouble because my parents showed me a clear path via education, discipline and genuine concern.....no "village" can pull that off near as well as a sound parent with true patriarchial and matriarchal love for their own. The "village" principle is simply a relinquishing of parental command. The same problems that plague kids now are the very same beasts I faced in the sixties and seventies.....drugs, alchohol, peer pressure, driving, guns, violence in schools, racial issues....yu name it, I been there, seen that....so has my sister. Neither one of us faltered, and that is a direct result of parenting. Many parents in our little rural village beat their kids, or left their kids in the hands of the schools or juvi.....and most of them failed in life later on. I don't speak from theory, I speak from real-world living and examples surrounding me everyday...my eyes are clear, and the truths are all around. Most instances where a parent subs in money, or social controls, the child suffers. When you bring a soul into the world, your life should absolutely be put on hold for the next 18 years or so, and all effort should be expended on the righteous training and education of that child.....PERIOD. And if you are not up for that task....don't have kids. You show me a child that has failed in life despite caring, loving & discipling parenting, and I'll show you a rare bird indeed.....but examples abound of children still failing despite the best efforts of society after the parents have failed them. Most rutting that occurs in human behavior has already formed by the time the child is five to six years old, and most of that time is in the hands of the parents, not society.

 

Holding society accountable for its actions does not in any way imply that the role of the parents should be diminished in the slightest. By the same token however, society should not wash its collective hands of the responsibility that it bears to each and every one of its members, be them child or adult. The "village" concept does not merely apply to those situations where the parents have "relinquish(ed) command". Clearly, the parents' influence is paramount. Parenting is a hands-on, in-your-face, first-person, in-the-line-of-fire experience. You are either 110% committed to it, or you have no right to be behind the wheel. I would agree that society has failed children more often than dilligent, loving parents have. But isn't that exactly the point? Were society to accept responsibility for its actions across the board, would that not only serve to buffer the role of the parent? If society got its act together, wouldn't that make parenting that much easier? Or, if not easier, at the very least, wouldn't it allow the parents to define their focus and efforts on QUALITY issues with their children. There is no discounting for the infinite diversity present in "modern-day" society. If society comes to grips with its role and responsibilities, diversity and individuality can and will still exist. Censorship is not a mandate of responsibility. Irresponsibility under the guise of individuality however, is unacceptable. How does an ethical, moral, responsible society serve to oppress anyone? Parents ARE responsible for the upbringing of their children. Parents SHOULD be actively involved in the nurturing and development of their kids. This nurturing shouldn't end when the kids step out the front door, out from beneath the protective familial umbrella. Society should continue and pick up where the parents leave off. The two should function in tandem. In fact, parents are a PART of society, not disparate from it. Parents may hold the reigns while a child undergoes preliminary development at ages 5 to 6, but be assured that there are still ample opportunities for behavioral "rutting" to occur well past this initial stage. At age 5 or 6, the basic fundamentals may have been imprinted, and the child may continue to remain "sheltered" until age 10 even. Though, as juvenile adolescence descends, the influence of society will gradually occupy a greater amount of the child's development. I agree that it all BEGINS in the home. I must also state however, that it does not END in the home. Societal acceptance of responsibility does not and should not replace that of the parents, but should instead supplement and augment it. Even the most perfect, June and Ward Cleaver-esque parents will not always be there for their kids. So does that mean that we, as a society adopt a "too bad, so sad" mentality? You allude to a "rural" upbringing. Rural society does differ, sometimes greatly from urban society, and again from the suburban. I have many rural ties in my family, and consequently in my upbringing. The rural environment greatly influenced who and what I am today. I also have suburban roots which have served to shape how I view the world today. My limited urban experiences have had an enormous impact on my belief system as well. I consider myself a fairly well-rounded individual. In the rural environment, I felt protected. In the suburban surroundings, I felt sheltered. In the urban world, I felt exposed. Why such different reactions to these individual sub-cultures? Why is it that these three parts of society as a whole, can leave me with such monumentally different perspectives? I do not necessarily agree that a parent's life should be "put on hold" after a child is born, until reaching the legal age of majority. I see the parent's life as evolving to include and encompass the life of their child. The parent's life exists. It continues. It adapts to include the life of the child. Parenting is not a spectator sport. Parents must be actively involved in the lives of their children. Why should we hold society to any less of a standard. I

 

Well spoken, SS......but I think you painted yurself into a corner....yu see, society is made up of individuals, and in order to expect society to step up and be as diligent as parents is a catch-22 incarnate. In order to reach that social echelon, the parents would already have to be diligent in their duties and already have fully commited themselves to their own children, and thus there would be no need for "society" to step up...they would already be there. Think of it like this, which is all too real....everything we have come to understand works on a molecular level. It is the totality of the parts that moves the whole.....in no case in Nature or otherwise does the whole initially move the parts. Not to mention that all too often, mass hysteria, and/or the sway of public opinion dissuades individuals from righteous thought or effort....if this were not true, parenting or any other truly worthwhile effort would be a piece of cake, because there would be no social distractions, but alas, that is what happens all too often with parents. They are diluded into thinking that if they provide a nice home, a pretty car, and money, then they don't need to parent as much. Conversly, the struggles of being beaten down by the social beast often overwhelm a parent, especially if they are less fortunate; thus they are beat down by the social demands, and fall prey to being too stressed to do right by the kids......I'm tellin' ya......societal control toward kids is not all it's cracked up to be, bro. Now, I will concede that society has much to do...but society will always be there, and once the individuals succumb to it's control and responsibility, then literally we become weaker, and less compelled to run the ship ourselves, less likely to be ultimately responsible, or to be truly independent. Just look at us now....more and more, we depend on our government to do things for us, to support us in many ways....& everyone is all too quick to blame someone else...or the government for screwin' up their lives....heck, even I do it, and I have to really concentrate on not being that way because I know it is essentially wrong. Most things wrong in our lives are of our own making, despite what we superficially think. And if we hand off the ball to someone else....and they mess it up...guess what, it's still our fault, because WE gave THEM the responsibility in the first place......and when it comes to your own flesh and blood, do you really want someone else to handle that?! I think not! And as to the Cleaver family profile, that goes to the heart of my thoughts.....if society had not been given such reign by US, then our individual wills would be much tougher, and approximations of such a parenting attitude would be much more prevalent. Heck, the main reason that show was so popular was because quite a few households ran that way back then.....people could easily relate!

 

my goodness you two talk alot.

 

With a society of "children raising children" I think it will be harder to empose these outlooks on them. Our children are spoiled, children are raising parents, cause their parents were children when they had them.

Second, I do not believe if someone wants to do drugs or drink they can because it only hurts themselves, it does'nt! If you have an alchoholic or drug addict in your family you would know that. Unless your heartless and nothing bothers you. If you know someone like this you know there actions effect you. (just like you said before and action make a re-action). Because you care for someone and you see them throwing there life away for that next drink or next fix, your helpless to stop them, you can't help them, you can't say something to make them feel better, you can't stop them, you can't fix them, you can't make them think differently, you are helpless and if your a person at ALL, THAT HURTS YOU! I'm not the ones taking drugs, BUT, because it's someone I know and love IT HURTS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So I do not agree with every thing that was said, but that is what makes this America and a better place to live (so we can make choices and have opions) I do agree to disagree

Bravo, do what you feel in your heart is best for you, when you look back on life you need to know what you did WAS BEST FOR YOU, I know you will make the right choice because of what's between your ears (your brain!)

 

1st of all- along with SS let me apologize to Bravo for totally hijacking this thread. And thank you. Because,

2nd------I love this discussion.

3rd----I totally agree with SC about drugs hurting the ones you love. I am very familiar with that situation. I think that is more like the example used earlier of diving 100 mph on the highway. If you chose to drive, you take the risk. If you get in the car with a 100 mph driver, your taking a risk. And even as someone else on the highway- totally unaware of the danger in the other car- You take a risk. It sucks. Its because you made certain choices. which leads me to---

4th----When i started reading SSs replies this morning I almost gave in due to pure mass of information & some really good points. Then I read kits reply . I think he is basically saying what I was trying to with a more age & experience to back it up. Im not implying he agrees with everything I said, but I totally agree with him. It all comes down to parents. Screw what everyone says, watch your children like a hawk, do not allow them to be led to temptation by fools, because fools are running rampant these days. If you cant be with your child 24-7, make sure they are with someone who will maintain your attitude & example. Most parents cant do that & so the responsibilty falls to "society". That is the what Im talking about- thats the problem! not the solution. "Debrief" your kid every night! If your kid is influenced by someone, anyone, even barry bonds, to take drugs- you dropped the ball. I think parents should dedicate their lives for 18 years to total involvement. If that happens, I think the chance of an outsiders influence slipping in goes WAY WAY down. Wouldnt that would be great.