Bryn Mawr;1415757 wrote: Now children are taught (by society) that whatever they do, no-one can touch them - they push to find their limits and they're given noneThere's quite a bit of irony here and it goes beyond the social values that presuppose the violent tendencies of our children.
Charles Sykes outlines it in his mention of "The values wasteland" in which we as a society expect that our children will gain insight into ethical values simply by choosing for themselves what they feel is appropriate action to take, given certain circumstances, without the experiences in life to validate their reasoning. This idea that children should discover themselves is further evidence that these issues go beyond social policy.
6 year old suspended for making gun gesture.
6 year old suspended for making gun gesture.
Ahso!;1415986 wrote: So then you weren't "forced" to raise your kids any particular way outside of meeting certain conditions such as educating, feeding and clothing them and not abusing them. And that there are programs in place to assist those who at any given time have difficulty meeting those standards, right?
As you say, I had a choice - others also had a choice and chose to do things differently. What I see is that the children of those who chose (or were not able) not to teach them respect and how to think rationally are now suffering the consequences - they are socially and economically disadvantaged and more likely to be in trouble with the law. (Another generalisation I know but think of it as a statistical analysis).
I do not see any of the above as ground breaking or controversial. What I was trying to say is that society appears to be moving away from a norm where respect is expected to a norm where children are taught that, no matter what they do, no one can touch them or discipline them in any effective way - over here a headmaster cannot expel a child even for violent conduct and many parents will cause a ruckus if a teacher has the temerity to put their darling on detention for disruptive behaviour.
All children push the boundaries - they explore their limits. If no limits are placed on then then they cannot learn how to function within society and, consequently, become misfits. It is societies responsibility to teach them the moral code applicable to that society to equip them for later life. That is not to condone the use of violence etc. but the onus is on society to teach children the life skills they need, not give them an artificial environment where competition is banned and actions have no consequences.
As you say, I had a choice - others also had a choice and chose to do things differently. What I see is that the children of those who chose (or were not able) not to teach them respect and how to think rationally are now suffering the consequences - they are socially and economically disadvantaged and more likely to be in trouble with the law. (Another generalisation I know but think of it as a statistical analysis).
I do not see any of the above as ground breaking or controversial. What I was trying to say is that society appears to be moving away from a norm where respect is expected to a norm where children are taught that, no matter what they do, no one can touch them or discipline them in any effective way - over here a headmaster cannot expel a child even for violent conduct and many parents will cause a ruckus if a teacher has the temerity to put their darling on detention for disruptive behaviour.
All children push the boundaries - they explore their limits. If no limits are placed on then then they cannot learn how to function within society and, consequently, become misfits. It is societies responsibility to teach them the moral code applicable to that society to equip them for later life. That is not to condone the use of violence etc. but the onus is on society to teach children the life skills they need, not give them an artificial environment where competition is banned and actions have no consequences.
6 year old suspended for making gun gesture.
K.Snyder;1416023 wrote: There's quite a bit of irony here and it goes beyond the social values that presuppose the violent tendencies of our children.
Charles Sykes outlines it in his mention of "The values wasteland" in which we as a society expect that our children will gain insight into ethical values simply by choosing for themselves what they feel is appropriate action to take, given certain circumstances, without the experiences in life to validate their reasoning. This idea that children should discover themselves is further evidence that these issues go beyond social policy.
Why do you suppose that this implies violent tendencies? The limits I'm talking about cover all social mores such as don't chew with your mouth open. I believe that these life skills should be actively taught rather than expecting the children to adsorb them by osmosis.
Charles Sykes outlines it in his mention of "The values wasteland" in which we as a society expect that our children will gain insight into ethical values simply by choosing for themselves what they feel is appropriate action to take, given certain circumstances, without the experiences in life to validate their reasoning. This idea that children should discover themselves is further evidence that these issues go beyond social policy.
Why do you suppose that this implies violent tendencies? The limits I'm talking about cover all social mores such as don't chew with your mouth open. I believe that these life skills should be actively taught rather than expecting the children to adsorb them by osmosis.
6 year old suspended for making gun gesture.
Bryn Mawr;1416059 wrote: Why do you suppose that this implies violent tendencies? The limits I'm talking about cover all social mores such as don't chew with your mouth open. I believe that these life skills should be actively taught rather than expecting the children to adsorb them by osmosis.I suppose that this type of moral relativism leads to violent tendencies that would otherwise not exist. I also suppose that violent tendencies are the result of ones cultural upbringing and that mental illness(as the result of chemical imbalance) makes up far less of the misfits in question than most are readily willing to accept.
I'm not attempting to imply that violence is the only questionable result of such relativism, rather an emphasis to highlight my point more effectually.
I'm not attempting to imply that violence is the only questionable result of such relativism, rather an emphasis to highlight my point more effectually.