From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 18:50:10 MDT
Eliezer and Randall dissent from my opinion. Rebels, indeed.
The first writes
> > I didn't think this could be true, but it transpired this was not even
> > exceptional. 'Oh no,' says Kay. 'The record is actually held by a female.' On
> > and off, she spent 18 months lying on her face.
> >
> > ...Isn't *this* pathological? Doesn't it seem to
> > indicate that there really is something deeply,
> > deeply, serious wrong with this girl?
>
> No. It makes her a hero. I would be proud to meet her.
Though I am normally of kindly disposition, for once I
would indeed hope that this befalls you and that moreover
you have to live with someone like that, just to know what
it is like. (Here, I am *assuming* that she was of the
type, also described by Randy [not Randall], who has worked
with many children. The "innocent" ones are an easy case, and
we need not dwell on them.)
> > How in the hell could she lay there hour after hour, day after day,
> > without saying, "Just how stupid could it be for me to have gotten
> > myself into this situation? Exactly what was so important that this
> > had to happen?"
> >
> > (This is not the same as a great martyr standing up for his God, or a
> > political dissident refusing to divulge the names of other dissidents.)
>
> It sounds just exactly the same to me.
>
> Children are people. Their parents don't believe it, but it's true. For
> her to stand up for her rights is just as heroic, just as meaningful, as
> Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus. Inconvenient, yes,
> painful, perhaps even breaking in the end, but heroic.
It certainly *often* is the case. There will be nightmare families
into which some are born, and the regrettable to me asymmetry here
is that *we* as a society have no and must have no legal right to
interfere.
> Consider also her alternatives. This is a school designed to break
> children. Nothing more, nothing less. She cannot just "go along" with
> the system. It is deliberately designed to reach into her soul, find her
> independence, and break it, to take every inch she gives it, and demand
> more.
What kind of person, pray tell me, is he or she that cannot
recognize a hopeless situation, and play ball? Now if it
were a fair contest of wills, that might be different, but
after a few *days* don't you think that she would get the
picture?
Here is a true disconnect: I, as a committed non-rebel, cannot
grok how when there is nothing important at stake, people can
be so stubborn? When an abusive, arrogant, stupid cop pulls
me over in some case where obviously he's out for some entertainment,
I do not resist: I let him write his ticket, and say what needs to
be said to get myself out of the stupid situation. But I do *not*
back down when principles are involved, as in a recent flare up on
this very list (in some situations, I do not seem to be able to
back down even when it would be prudent).
> Remember also that these children are not adults and they do not
> have adult resources to resist; the people trying to destroy their souls
> are smarter and more experienced and have leisure to think and plan. No,
> she was quite wise to resist every step of the way for as long as she
> possibly could.
Your two sentences seem in flagrant contradiction to me.
> No one thinks much, on this list or elsewhere, of proposing that parents
> should have 24-hour surveillance capabilities over their children. Why
> not? Children are valuable objects, aren't they? Why shouldn't we be
> able to keep watch on them?
>
> Have you forgotten what a living hell that would have made your life when
> you were a child? Are those memories so painful that they have simply
> been lost? ...But I remember.
A "living hell"? Pal, you don't know what you are talking
about. And no, it would not have made my life uncomfortable
if my parents were on the whole reasonable, no more than I
would feel awkward in a transparent society. Yes, it would
be frightful if my parents (or the government) was unreasonable,
and we have even found out, in the latter case, that they will
be unreasonable unless they are accountable too.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 18:59:11 MDT