America's Unchallenged Youth...

[Halon451]

(sigh)... Alright then. Your will, your way man. God bless the freedom of expression.

I'm tired. Talk to you fellas tomorrow.

 

[Tomorrow]

Tomorrow,
I'm the one who claimed to know how to stop the cycle. To use your example of fish let me just say that the one and only fish I EVER gave away was to another fisherman and that was only because he was hungry.

Maybe empathy isn't quite the right word for it. Let me try the word connectedness. I am stopping the cycle. I guess the effects of my efforts have yet to reach you but wait for it. You'll know it when you see it. Like others here have said, it starts at home but I figure it's like the Domino effect. The last domino never understands where it all started but it knows that it has been affected.

No Alex...I was referring to Johnd. And I said nothing about fish. Do you have me confused with another?

 

[Tomorrow]

Do you really want to go toe to toe? Mixing threads? Joe wrote that he could "disrespect" anyone he wanted to. I had something to say about that. Still do. It was brought to my attention that he may misunderstand, or may simply be misusing that term. Then he qualified my suspicions by writing that disrespect is simply a feeling. I have nothing more to add. Many misuse terms.

So this is far from lecturing. It's not even correcting. Not my provence. It is about clarification. So that I can understand. Did we not go through this months ago? What one means, what one doesn't mean, and what one doesn't know.

Back on point. At face value, strat's single statement struck me as a general statement to all. After all, he wrote "No one knows how to stop the cycle." That is a proclamation about all people, of which I am a part. I am therefore entitled to respond....like it, or not. It is to that message I responded. Perhaps you would do better by thinking of my post as an augmentation (and/or request for clarification), rather than a correction. As I already wrote, I agreed with his post in its' entirety, except for that segment. Words speak volumes, and those words spoke plainly to me. But enough sophistry.

Uggghhh. I hope I don't get so fuzzy headed when I approach you age.

You have once again gone astray, John. My point about your slap at Schmoe had nothing to do with lecturing him and everything to do with your admonishment toward the careful choosing ones words, and how proud you state you are of said deed for yourself. But I guess "spiffballing", whatever that is, must fit somewhere in that careful choosing of language, eh? You, in fact, were trying to bail out of what was indeed a lecture to S-man.

"Fuzzy headed", huh? That your continued insults and arrogance don't get you banned is beyond me. (Oh, but YOU were just kidding, weren't you? I can see the smiley...like that makes it all okay.)

 

[pzaur]

I believe I'm going to stop reading this thread. Until people start to realize that the real problem starts from the education at birth and actually raising a child, then there will be no change from where we are.
We are definitely heading towards Idiocracy. I almost feel guilty for having a child at this time. They shouldn't have to deal with this amount of malarkey.

Rickster - I'm really disheartened that you see teaching as a part-time job. You've obviously never spent anytime in front of children for extended periods of time. Try it for a month. I'd love to see how your opinion changes on the profession. Teaching has never been a part-time job. But, if you only look at clock hours on paper...I can't help you there. Most teachers would love to get rid of the summer. That won't happen because the parent's complain that it would take away their "vacation" time.

I'd love to open a daycare. Would you pay me $15,000 a year to watch your child while you're at work? Then again, that's only for 180 days. How about this figure: $21,000. That's for the workweek for the whole year. I bet you're balking at that right now. You're getting a deal. Private school costs about $21,000 or more. That's only for 180 days.

You don't have to teach your child any of the "core subjects" or anything else. Just raise them with manners. Wait, that seems to be falling into my hands also. Just turn the TV on and give 'em Ritalin.

As for my "copious benefits". What an American way of thinking. Check the rest of the world. 4-6 weeks of paid vacation a year is basically standard. You're overworked and won't admit it. You get paid for 40 hours a week and work 60...I get paid...wait...I'm part-time in your head. I don't even warrant benefits. Just send me that welfare check and watch my teeth fall out. Any teacher should have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet. It's only part-time.

Just try and convince any teacher that you can do what we do. I have no idea what your profession is, but, it can't be anywhere as stressful or annoying as what I have to deal with. It also can't be anywhere as rewarding as what I have to deal with.

Would you be willing to pay me $127,000 to teach your child for 260 days a year? Probably not. That's what it would come to at $0.41/hour/kid with 30 kids at 8 hours/day. You also need to include facilities and materials in there.

Part-time my ***. I bet you're pissed that you're neighbor manages his money better and is better off. Chances are very good that I'll retire better than you. Not because of my "copious benefits", but, I have to be frugal with my salary.

But honestly, try teaching for a month, or even better, a year. Deal with the attitudes, the politics, the bureaucracy, the standardized testing (completely different subject), and the parents and students. Spend 4-6 years getting a degree for a "part-time" job and then spend countless hours in classes after to keep your "part-time" job. Of course, other professions require classes, but you don't consider them to be "part-time" jobs. Heaven forbid your plumbing gone down the drain...$70/hour right there.

"Johnny, isn't that you're 3rd grade teacher serving us our hamburgers. I'm glad they found a "real" job with real possibilities."

Yeah, I'm annoyed. If you really think teaching is a part-time profession then maybe you should homeschool your children. Better make sure they can pass that GED and then score will on the SAT or ACT. That's a lot of knowledge to pass on from one person for the first 18 years of life. I know of no one who could do that. Every homeschooled child I have seen in my class has been behind in every category, especially social skills.

-pat

 

[Johnd]

You have once again gone astray, John. My point about your slap at Schmoe had nothing to do with lecturing him and everything to do with your admonishment toward the careful choosing ones words, and how proud you state you are of said deed for yourself. But I guess "spiffballing", whatever that is, must fit somewhere in that careful choosing of language, eh? You, in fact, were trying to bail out of what was indeed a lecture to S-man.

"Fuzzy headed", huh? That your continued insults and arrogance don't get you banned is beyond me. (Oh, but YOU were just kidding, weren't you? I can see the smiley...like that makes it all okay.)

Some of us simply lack a sense of humor. You've been trolling me again Tomorrow. I think you secretly love me.

I issue no retraction. For the third time, no lecture was given. Spiffballing? I thought a Latin scholar would know as much. Remember Hominum Tomorrow, and your affiliation?

I thought the fuzzy-headed comment was both funny and poignant, as I too, have always liked Elmer Fudd (though Buggs always got the best of him! And I just love that about the cartoon! ). Were you to lift the flap hat off of Elmer's (and your's by extension, as the avatar is supposed to be some representation of the poster...no?) head, I think you'll find it to be fuzzy. Bah de, bah de, bah de, that's all folks!

 

[Alex2507]

I know how to stop the cycle.

As it stands, we keep giving them fish while they refuse to learn how to fish for themselves. and yet, we continue to give them fish...

I'm glad at least one person knows how to stop the cycle. Would you mind stopping it?

No Alex...I was referring to Johnd. And I said nothing about fish. Do you have me confused with another?

Yes, I have you confused with another. That doesn't sound right, does it? Thanks for helping me see the error of my ways. You don't seem to be fuzzy headed at all. You guys have fun, I got me some painting to do.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

And, just how do you plan to make them use them?

Sorry, you may not se esex and s a moral issue, but going out and making babies without any "protection" because it's fun and then walking away from the responsibility of providing and for and raising them IS a moral issue, They are no better than monkeys in a zoo.

My point was that recreational sex is perfectly fine and not at all immoral provided that protection is used. I agree 100% that unwanted pregnancies and STDs are major problems, which is why condoms must be used every time. (Religious leaders who preach abstinence obviously don't understand human nature, since that just simply isn't going to happen.)

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Welfare reform was the best thing that Clinton and the Republican Congress did together while they were in office.

Perhaps so. Most of the time, the Republican Congress got in the way of the many good things he set out to do. In stark contrast to most Republican presidents (especially the current one), Clinton also maintained a balanced budget.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The responsibility starts and ends at home, period. Broken homes mean broken children which grow into broken adults. No one knows how to stop the cycle, it borders on morals ethics and though some don't want to hear it, religion. For centuries religion kept people in line, man discards religion, adopts so-called enlightenment, man loses morals society decays. There is a difference between liberty and the pursuit of happiness and libertinism and the pursuit of debauchery.

I agree with all but the religion part. Right and wrong can be taught within the context of actual reality. Introducing fantasies like "God" into the equation adds nothing, and interferes with the kid's ability to learn science (aka the only truth that the human race knows) when the time comes.

 

[Halon451]

I believe I'm going to stop reading this thread. Until people start to realize that the real problem starts from the education at birth and actually raising a child, then there will be no change from where we are.

Pzaur, I believe that many of us who have posted share in this idea. It has been stated several times.

You don't have to teach your child any of the "core subjects" or anything else. Just raise them with manners. Wait, that seems to be falling into my hands also. Just turn the TV on and give 'em Ritalin.

What happens when a child demonstrates advanced learning capability or a higher intellect? In the pre-school environment, and this is what I have seen happen first-hand, a child who has clearly shown that he/she is advanced, easily gets bored with the routine tasks. They finish early, and then run amok, because they are not being properly challenged, and nobody wants to exert the extra effort to challenge a kid that needs it, and can thrive from it. Instead, in the case of my co-workers kid, who the pre-school director suggested placing her child on medication, when he is clearly far beyond his peers as far as learning - he is easily bored and tends to kind of wander around because no one is taking the time with him.

Hence, the title of this thread holds apparent...

Just try and convince any teacher that you can do what we do. I have no idea what your profession is, but, it can't be anywhere as stressful or annoying as what I have to deal with. It also can't be anywhere as rewarding as what I have to deal with.

I can only imagine what it must be like to be a teacher in school these days, so I will give you tons of credit for what you do, no doubt.

 

[Alex2507]

I agree with all but the religion part. Right and wrong can be taught within the context of actual reality. Introducing fantasies like "God" into the equation adds nothing, and interferes with the kid's ability to learn science (aka the only truth that the human race knows) when the time comes.

Yeah, that's not going to get anybodies panties all up in a bunch.

 

[Halon451]

I agree with all but the religion part. Right and wrong can be taught within the context of actual reality. Introducing fantasies like "God" into the equation adds nothing, and interferes with the kid's ability to learn science (aka the only truth that the human race knows) when the time comes.

That's debatable, and should be left to the parents to decide if they want to introduce their children to "God" (as any religious family would do), and is not for any of us to decide. I personally don't believe in God as in the way the Bible describes, and my over-analytical nature has often led me to pursue the truths in science and hard fact, over superstition, blind faith and hope.

Nevertheless, it should not be regarded as part of the problem is they are led to believe in "God". Why not? Isn't that still one of the principles with which this country was founded, that we are free to worship as we please? Religion has had its share of bad moments throughout history, but in the current context, it promotes decency, goodwill and fellowship towards other human beings. What could be so wrong about that?

Even as an analytical science junkie myself, I have to admit that there are thigns that cannot yet be explained by science alone, and that we exist within a universe that is beyond our comprehension. Part of the beauty of life is the mystery surrounding it all. No, the real problem lies within our own arrogance as a species, and our ability to grow ahead of ourselves and undermine the very things that make us feel connected to one another, and in our laziness as a society to meet the challenges we face with our present and future, and take whatever steps we have to, to preserve our right to be.

 

[aberkowitz]

I agree with all but the religion part. Right and wrong can be taught within the context of actual reality. Introducing fantasies like "God" into the equation adds nothing, and interferes with the kid's ability to learn science (aka the only truth that the human race knows) when the time comes.

Joe- I think by this point everybody knows that you don't believe in religion, and that's totally fine... I completely respect your belief that religion is a bunch of hokey BS. My problem, however, is that you can't respect other people because they have differing beliefs than yourself.

Putting aside the extremes (and I would argue that very few people in this country fall within the extreme) if religion is what gets somebody through the day and allows them to contribute to society in a meaningful way, then what's the problem?

 

[aberkowitz]

Even as an analytical science junkie myself, I have to admit that there are thigns that cannot yet be explained by science alone, and that we exist within a universe that is beyond our comprehension. Part of the beauty of life is the mystery surrounding it all. No, the real problem lies within our own arrogance as a species, and our ability to grow ahead of ourselves and undermine the very things that make us feel connected to one another, and in our laziness as a society to meet the challenges we face with our present and future, and take whatever steps we have to, to preserve our right to be.

Absolutely!!! I personally have witnessed things that cannot be explained by medical science. It doesn't mean that there's not a scientific reason in the end, but as humans maybe we just cannot comprehend how and why our bodies react the way they do in certain situations. During those times, there's nothing wrong with believe that a higher power provided assistance.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Even as an analytical science junkie myself, I have to admit that there are thigns that cannot yet be explained by science alone, and that we exist within a universe that is beyond our comprehension.

Absolutely. There are a great many things that we do not know and may never know, I just think that it is better to accept this at face value rather than to make up explanations that have no basis in anything except wishful thinking. The things that we do know, we know because of science, and any increase in our knowledge will be a result of applying the scientific method.
What is wrong with religion is that it teaches people to accept false beliefs, and invests authority in texts with no real claim to it. This actively interferes with the ability to think scientifially, which requires accepting nothing without proof. I make no distiction between those who imagine that prayer can cure cancer and those who think aliens are going to carry them away in flying saucers.

 

[Halon451]

There's a couple people here that really need to calm down and stop getting so defensive when someone posts something they don't agree with. I'm not going to mention names, but you know who you are. This is what's called a friendly debate, and if you can't handle it without exposing your own arrogance and overly sensitive nature, then maybe it's time for you to move on and find another thread to bark on, or whatever makes you feel better. Pleeeeease...

It's easy to come down on religion, and you would be the first to slam someone for their belief in a particular faith, but it's all coming off as just as preachy as a Bible thumper who is doing the exact opposite, and trying to cram religion down someone's throat - neither of which I find acceptable. The point here isn't to prove who's right and who's wrong, but to recognize key aspects of our system and our society that needs work and how it is affecting our nation's youth.

Okay, I feel better now. Merry Christmas and God bless...

 

[markw]

My point was that recreational sex is perfectly fine and not at all immoral provided that protection is used. I agree 100% that unwanted pregnancies and STDs are major problems, which is why condoms must be used every time. (Religious leaders who preach abstinence obviously don't understand human nature, since that just simply isn't going to happen.)

So, it's the condom that makes the difference? How about if they use the pill, an IUD or whatever?

And, if one doesn't engage with promiscious partners, STD's a shouldn't be an issue, should it?

As for the kids not using protection because of church's stance against birth control, well, if they were that worried about the church's views here, they wouldn't be having extra-marital sex in the first place.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

So, it's the condom that makes the difference? How about if they use the pill, an IUD or whatever?

And, if one doesn't engage with promiscious partners, STD's a shouldn't be an issue, should it?

As for the kids not using protection because of church's stance against birth control, well, if they were that worried about the church's views here, they wouldn't be having extra-marital sex in the first place.

The method is not important, as long as it is effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy (though the pill has a lot of side effects.) Condoms have the added advantage of preventing the spread of STDs.

Nobody has any practical way of knowing whether a potential partner has been promiscuous or not (people do lie, after all.)

I don't think that it is the church's stance that prevents kids from using protection, but rather lack of education and easy access to condoms. By recognizing that sex will happen, and providing these services as the "lesser of two evils", they could do some real good.

 

[aberkowitz]

I don't think that it is the church's stance that prevents kids from using protection, but rather lack of education and easy access to condoms. By recognizing that sex will happen, and providing these services as the "lesser of two evils", they could do some real good.

I completely agree with that point.

One other factor that hasn't been brought up is the cost of condoms. While sex clinics that provide free condoms are great, not enough people have access to them so they are left on their own. I am surprised that nobody has tried to corner the condom market by making "generics" that are sold at a steep discount to the expensive Trojans and Lifestyles.

 

[Halon451]

Absolutely. There are a great many things that we do not know and may never know, I just think that it is better to accept this at face value rather than to make up explanations that have no basis in anything except wishful thinking. The things that we do know, we know because of science, and any increase in our knowledge will be a result of applying the scientific method.
What is wrong with religion is that it teaches people to accept false beliefs, and invests authority in texts with no real claim to it. This actively interferes with the ability to think scientifially, which requires accepting nothing without proof. I make no distiction between those who imagine that prayer can cure cancer and those who think aliens are going to carry them away in flying saucers.

Well, that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I do actually share your thoughts on the matter of religion more or less, but I say to each their own. I wouldn't want someone in my face telling me that what I believe is wrong, so why should I do it to anyone else? I think the original point was how religion can contain good, decent messages that hold true, no matter if you think there is a God or not. Some have said that the Bible (for example) can be interpreted as the "handbook for living". I put absolutely no faith in the Bible, but I will agree with that statement, because at least it is meant to promote decency and goodwill toward our fellow people (if you cut through all the "God said this, God said that stuff"). You don't necessarily have to subscribe to the faith to see the message, you know?

God or no god, I think the things that exist beyond our level of comprehension do so because maybe we're not meant to understand them. If we knew everything there is to know about the universe and everything in it, what would be the point of living?