John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Which is kind of a turnaround since ancient times.  With a few 
> exceptions, most ancient cultures treated children as objects.

  Somehow it seems that the humanity only knows extremes. When something
or someone suffers from one extreme for a long time, this problem is
later "solved" with the complete opposite extreme. This other extreme
more often than not borders the ridiculous, and can sometimes even do
harm. (I'm not saying this is one such case, as this particular case
is pretty complicated, but in general.)

  Is the concept of moderation really so difficult for humanity to
grasp?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:

> This seems a bit off to me, why would there
> be a focus on kids?  Wouldn't this sort of
> eugenics apply to adults too?
> 
> Also it seems like even if 99% of the
> kidnapped people would die on planet X
> then 1% would survive, so why not just
> take as many as possible to strand on planet X?


Wouldn't everyone start having kids right before whatever is the
abductee-age?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Galvin wrote:
> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
>>
>> Can you show 10-year olds in a sort of "The Poseidon Adventure" epic
>> where
>> not all the ones you introduce the reader to survive by the end?
>>
>>
> 
> Ender's game
> Harry Potter
> Narnia
> The Sopranos....oops maybe not that one.
His Dark Material
Memory Sorrow and Thorn
Almost all of Heinlein's juvi books, Podkayne of Mars jumps out as a
really good example even though the editors changed the ending.

And if you really want to argue, how old was Juliet?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Which is kind of a turnaround since ancient times.  With a few
>> exceptions, most ancient cultures treated children as objects.
>
>  Somehow it seems that the humanity only knows extremes. When
> something or someone suffers from one extreme for a long time, this
> problem is later "solved" with the complete opposite extreme.

It's easy to think it seems that way, because our minds are better at 
noticing extremes than noticing lack of extremes. Thus, if an extreme 
gradually disappears over time and is replaced with harmony and moderation, 
chances are nobody makes a big deal out of it or even notice it, while 
extremes that changes into other extremes will certainly be noticed and 
create a lot of fuzz.

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Is the concept of moderation really so difficult for humanity to
> grasp?

Apparently, yes - I wish it wasn't as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46f00a05$1@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:05:31 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>>   Is the concept of moderation really so difficult for humanity to
>> grasp?
>
> Apparently, yes - I wish it wasn't as well.

     Apparently, yes, because we're all so selfish to the extent that we 
really don't care about anything any more unless it's for gain.

      Hussein > Mugabe. Sad, but true.

       ~Steve~



>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:32:06 +0100, St. wrote:

>      Apparently, yes, because we're all so selfish to the extent that we
> really don't care about anything any more unless it's for gain.
> 
>       Hussein > Mugabe. Sad, but true.

I think it's more that many/most people are incapable of/unwilling to 
trying to see the world through any eyes but their own.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46f0145a@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:32:06 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>>      Apparently, yes, because we're all so selfish to the extent that we
>> really don't care about anything any more unless it's for gain.
>>
>>       Hussein > Mugabe. Sad, but true.
>
> I think it's more that many/most people are incapable of/unwilling to
> trying to see the world through any eyes but their own.

      Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome again. 
How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?

      I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys need a 
real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.


        ~Steve~


>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:53 +0100, St. wrote:

>       Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome
>       again.
> How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?

Far, far too many.  Of course, the "I'm right and you're wrong" syndrome 
doesn't help things, either, particularly where it's an ideological 
discussion and neither side can prove *definitively* that they're right.

>       I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys need
>       a
> real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.

Green guys?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:46f01eaf$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:22:53 +0100, St. wrote:
>
>>       Yes, I'd agree with that. It's the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome
>>       again.
>> How many times has that reared its ugly head in our lifetime?
>
> Far, far too many.  Of course, the "I'm right and you're wrong" syndrome
> doesn't help things, either, particularly where it's an ideological
> discussion and neither side can prove *definitively* that they're right.

    Checkmate! Are we not all tired of this by now?


>
>>       I won't rattle on about Hussein, but really, those green guys need
>>       a
>> real lesson taught. That's all. Bastards.
>
> Green guys?

     Yeah, sorry, I meant Green Bombers. Mugabe's army.


       ~Steve~



>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message