reply to post by Neurolanis
Um, no. I am interested in early childhood psychology and social impact, actually. I believe that a person basically becomes who he will always
be in spirit/heart by age four, and in character by age 10 at the latest.
I doubt I could agree more with this statement. And it implies another potential agreement between us: would you say that, since this early
development is prior to school age, that it is the parents and not the school system that is primarily responsible for the character of the
I think where we disagree here is that you have a very pro-discipline approach to dealing with kids while I have a more social/psychological
I don't think either approach, taken to the extreme, is appropriate. Physical discipline is indeed necessary in my opinion, but a lack of
social/psychological discipline can cross that fine line into abuse. Conversely, social/psychological discipline never backed up by the credible
threat of physical punishment is typically inadequate for the job of raising well-adjusted children, especially those who are headstrong.
Please don't think I am against the use of such techniques where they are profitable; some segments of society have, however, tried to press for a
complete abandonment of physical punishment for misbehaving children, and this can often lead to those who prefer a balanced approach taking extreme
sides as a countermeasure to such pressures.
But I seriously doubt that parents would trust all principals and acting principals to practice the same patience, self-discipline and moral
judgement as they would when dealing with their children. Some of them are monsters too.
As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with this statement. There are those in the school system who are simply incapable of communicating
the best values of society to those under their care. I have come across several during raising my children, and have used them to teach my children
about reality and how to effectively deal with oppression. I even used one incident with a principal who had no comprehension of personal property to
demonstrate how to handle someone in authority without encountering later consequences (severe embarrassment, forced restitution, and a record of the
event for later reference).
This is one serious issue within the public school system. Tenure should be outlawed. It has been used to allow teachers and faculty members to run
roughshod over the children without consequence too many times. I respect seniority, but effective teaching is more than time served without being
That said, one aspect of this thread is that the proposal does not guarantee that any teacher or administrator can carry a weapon; it only states that
those who would otherwise be able to carry one can also do so while in their official capacity. Just as there are some monsters out there in the
school system, there are some civilians (including teachers) that are also firearms experts.
...but when a kid gets struck across the face you’re likely talking about fear, embarrassment, self-doubt and even strong feelings of low
When an adult strikes a child across the face, that is not discipline; that is abuse. We both agree that is a wrong that should never be tolerated.
Perhaps 'shock' would be a better term than 'surprise'. I was actually thinking of my daughter when I typed that. She rarely needed much in the
form of physical discipline (although she did get a couple of swats across the butt when she was little). Instead, that light swat, a sudden
indication that Daddy was upset with her actions, evoked a stream of tears. My son, on the other hand, was headstrong and has gotten some pretty
severe spankings. The point being that each child has their own needs that must be addressed individually; what one might see as a punishment, another
might see as play; what one might deem terrible, another might deem irrelevant.
In short, I don't believe there is a methodology that will work with every child. Children need an extraordinary amount of attention and instruction,
and ultimately it up to primarily the parents and secondarily the teachers to provide this. Any restrictions on how children are to be disciplined
reduces the ability to effectively raise some children to be productive, happy, successful adults.
I also have to say I am truly sorry to hear about your experiences... I am assuming your parents were unable to help?
I’ve never raised kids so I am not aware of the difficulties. But like I say, I am not against parents disciplining their kids.
I commend you for your open-mindedness then. Too many times I have had those who never had children try to tell me how I had to raise mine. Knowledge
(which you apparently have) is important, yes, but so is experience.
The ‘children of tomorrow’ depends on how they are raised by parents, treated in school and encouraged by the media that preys upon them to
shame their parents into buying their items. It also depends upon the moral fabric (and I think a spiritual (not necessarily religious) connection on
society; a sense of cultural connection and spiritual purpose or value in living. These all certainly need to be worked on.
Again, we agree.
I believe a return to the principle of parents being primarily responsible for their children would help immeasurably. While there will always be some
parents who refuse to take responsibility, that is no reason to deny the ability to freely raise children (outside obvious abuse, of course) from the
Schools should return to being places of learning and not places of security. Children are not criminals, and should not feel as though they are in
some sort of prison. That itself breeds animosity and leads to anti-social behavior, and thus begins a spiral downwards: more disruption leads to more
restrictions, which lead to more resentment, which leads to more disruption, which leads to more restrictions, etc., etc., etc.
The media actually has no power if the parents exercise their responsibilities. It is the abrogation of this responsibility that has led to the
media-induced materialism we see today.
I believe religious values have an indispensable place in any moral society. I don't think it even depends on the individual beliefs as much as a
belief in right and wrong and a spiritual connection to others (which I think is what you alluded to as well). For example, I am a Christian; the
actual religion teaches us to not judge nor disparage others, including those of other religions. Our commandment to "go forth and minister" is more
a command to meet others and show through our actions who we are, than one to go around preaching to everyone in earshot (a very common misconception
even among devoted followers of the religion, unfortunately).
Cultural connections are indeed vital as well, in order to instill a sense of security in who one is. That does not necessarily disparage other
cultures, of course, but it does celebrate each culture as important to the members of that culture. Want an example? My username is TheRedneck.
I blame all three of these problems on capitalism, which is pretty self-evident I think.
I don't blame capitalism, because we no longer are under capitalism... at least not true capitalism. We are more of a materialistic society, which is
a different thing.
Capitalism is an economic methodology, where capital (money) is the medium of exchange. It says nothing about spirituality, politics, or culture.
Materialism, on the other hand, is a social order where a person's inherent value to society is measured under capitalistic principles. That I
disagree with, as money is not the route to happiness and happiness is the true measure of success.
A fine difference to be sure, but one I consider extremely important.
I am strongly against physical punishment or the carrying of guns in public schools for the reasons I’ve stated.
As I have stated, physical punishment is not effective alone; it must be tempered with other methods. In its barest form, all punishment is
unpleasant, and physical punishment is simply the most effective method across the entire spectrum of humanity. It is universal; no child likes pain.
As such, any effort to discipline children which dismisses physical correction out of hand has a high chance of failure. Other methods are preferable
when they work, and effective use of all techniques can lead to increased effectiveness of the alternate techniques... as long as the option of
physical punishment is still viable.
But this is all about the source of the problem, whereas the issue of guns is about a social response to the problem. Shooting someone, regardless of
the reason, is never corrective punishment! It is an attempt to stop destructive behavior when such behavior becomes dangerous to others. Please, do
not take anything I have said to mean that I support shooting children as a means of discipline!
In a world where shootings at schools are becoming all too common, a world where children's lives are taken by criminals who have shown no regard for
the 'gun-free school zone', it makes no sense to further protect these criminals by lessening the chance that they will face consequences for their
actions or by increasing the ease at which they may continue to take innocent lives. It makes more sense to make it more difficult for criminals to
take multiple lives or to accomplish their goals without harm to themselves. Given the choice of facing someone intent on killing others for several
minutes while police arrive, or cohabiting with those who have demonstrated to law enforcement their adeptness with a gun, I will take the latter.
And those are the only two choices children in a targeted school have today.