It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 children?
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 fired.
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 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 rest.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s sad to see a general loss of respect and morals in society. Obviously the recession plays a big part in this; tough financial times.
Incidentally, a lot of bullies I knew in school had it tough because they were from broken homes. That town had been hit hard by the collapse of the fishing industry; financial crises causing emotional off-balance and abuse in many families.
The school board should consult child psychologists on the psychological impact their kind of environment has on kids.
Yeah I thought that name rather brave actually (in a good way.) It’s usually used to attack low-income country folk. Of course, being a country bumpkin myself, I find it offensive (when used that way.) I never liked the term “the sticks” either lol. Someone would say, “Oh, you’re from the sticks.” I’d just stare at them in confusion of how they meant it. I always loved the woods and to me “sticks” sounds belittling. My take anyway.
A correct statement about the usefulness of discipline, but I still say that parents won’t trust principals and acting principals to practice the same self-discipline and moral judgement as they would.
Just that, thinking back on some teachers I had, if they had access to a gun...yikes! I can easily predict that it would be overused for intimidation, a symbol of control and authority to frighten kids into submission. Again, I’m sure some would use it responsible. But “the others” that wouldn’t?
Not sure what to say after all this. You made some good points that I hadn’t considered before. I guess, for me it would all depend on how it was handled.
Thanks for explaining your side of this.
We seem to have a lot of agreement happening.
When the things one most prizes are threatened, people tend to become angry and sullen. At one time in my lifetime, that most prized was one's children and one's name. Today it is the plasma HDTV, the computer, the fancy car, or the nice house in an affluent neighborhood.
Of course, the fact that children have been replaced by materialism as the focus of attention is also a direct cause as to why children are less behaved than before. It's a question of priority.
That name was given me as an insult in high school (I had my battles with bullies as well). I took it as an insult until I began to realize what it really meant... hard-working, independent, tenacious when attacked... and adapted it to a compliment rather than an insult. In the process, I found out who I really was... a redneck, with the same intelligence and potential as anyone else. Many of my friends today call me "Redneck", and I have actually turned and answered when someone called it out in a crowd. I have a given name, of course, but "Redneck" is my chosen name.
And I also live out 'in the sticks'... with a private WiFi hotspot and all kinds of technology at my fingertips.
Two points here: one, the bill only allows those who qualify for a concealed-carry permit to carry a weapon. These would be the same people who can carry it anywhere else. Most areas, despite popular belief, do have pretty strict requirements to obtain a CCW permit. I have one, and went through that procedure. I had to get signatures from three prominent citizens, give a massive amount of personal information, and then, after I had been thoroughly 'checked out' on paper, had to have a face-to-face interview with the local sheriff. Not just anyone can get a CCW permit.
Originally posted by the_0bserver85
This is a very very dumb and bad idea, I'm telling you ...... cops with guns has already been a dangerous bunch, let alone educators with guns.
Sh1t, I see some educators even easier to snap than cops.
Scary time indeed.