Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sbcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!debray From: debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.kids Subject: Re: Parents' "rights" and responsibilities Message-ID: <708@sbcs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-Aug-84 10:38:08 EDT Article-I.D.: sbcs.708 Posted: Tue Aug 14 10:38:08 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Aug-84 00:40:00 EDT References: <1734@uw-june> Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook Lines: 35> I see that I have a responsibility to raise my child to be an > independent, functioning member of society. Agreed. > You can't claim a distinction between beliefs I can teach and beliefs I > can't. Hmm ... if I understand you correctly, you're claiming that it's as defensible to teach your kids to believe that rape and murder are okay, as it is to teach them to believe that they're not. Can't see how that'd produce "independent, functioning members of society" ... > You've taken a completely untenable position, my friend. You are > arguing that there is a set of beliefs which are "acceptable" to teach > children, and another set that is not. While it'd be stupid to claim that there's a *unique* set of "acceptable" beliefs (since the "acceptability" of any belief is a function of the culture we're referring to), once we fix a social setup as a frame of reference, a set of "acceptable" beliefs crystallizes to a great extent. Or would you say that cannibalism is as "acceptable" in downtown Manhattan as it is in certain societies in the Amazon valley? Clearly, the set of "acceptable" beliefs for your child depends on the society you expect him to live in. -- Saumya Debray, SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs \ {amd, akgua, decwrl, utzoo}!allegra > !sbcs!debray {tektronix, metheus}!ogcvax / CSNet: debray%suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay