[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Sweet and Nice -- and Very Dictatorial.



On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:29:02 EDT, Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU>
wrote:


>Before the turn of the century, the elderly were often perceived as the 
>wise and seasoned members of society. 
 
Toby

Some were.  Some weren't.  I think it was mainly the _rich_ who were
able to get assent to their claims of wise seasoning.  Do you claim
that there has been a change?

>                                                                               However, at some point in this 
>century, we have ceased to respect and utilize the knowledge base which 
>the elderly possess. 
 
Hunh?  My guess would be that the validity of our "knowledge base" is
only around 50.1% for the whole race, which is pretty good, and that
there is no age group in which it ever gets above 50.11%  If there is
an age group in which the degree of accuracy falls far below this, it
is probably among 17-25 year-olds -- the hypothesis producers -- who
are among the most productive and useful.  
 
Incidentally you confuse wisdom and knowledge with wild abandon.

> I do not believe elderly choose to live a life of 
>golf and shuffleboard, but that they are socially forced into this 
>position. The primary reason for this is the severing of the sacred bonds 
>which existed between generations for the passing down of knowledge from 
>the old to the young.  If senior citizens in this country once again 
>resumed their rightful positions as sages, instead of being simply 
>classified as dottering old geezers, than this country would profit 
>tremendously.
 
Let me guess: you're beginning to feel your age?

>Just because I recognize that the elderly in this country are not being 
>used to their best potential doesn't mean I feel them as worthless.

What you said was: " Longer lives are only valuable when the elderly
can be encouraged to serve as leaders and sages..."  Perhaps "only
valuable" has aquired a new meaning in the last 48 hours?

>                                                                                  I 
>just feel that a consumption-based society, in which little effort is 
>given towards social and moral improvement, and almost all resources are 
>dedicated to economic improvement, automatically, out of the need for 
>consumer segregation, separates different generations.
 
I think that that is a run-on sentence.  Also a run together of mush.
I wouldn't care -- it could be the feeling of the season -- if it
weren't that this sort of sloppy sentimental goo so consistently leads
to the sort of steely authoritarianism you expressed earlier, and
which I re-quoted above.  "Only valuable" is the language of
bureaucratic killers.
 
                                                                -dlj.
 

 
                    




References: