[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: