Why Americans cannot discipline their children

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by arauca, Dec 22, 2012.

  1. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Michael,
    I don't think I have ever been in a crackhouse, so retract my doubts a bit. I still say the author of the report will slant the story somewhat to defend his positional bias, and playing with feces or covered in feces could just mean "dirty diaper". Baths used to make my oldest son poop for whatever reason, and I would quickly scoop out the poo, and redraw the bath. On one occasion I didn't notice right away and he handed me a piece of poop. I was like, "Um, thanks", and I accepted the poo and and dropped it in the toilet. It became one of my favorite stories to tell to his girlfriends when he got older.

    I agree some mothers/fathers should not have kids.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    I find that perhaps that parents find it hard to say NO to their children

    Further , I remember a study done in Britain where alot of the people had an high IQ , that were taking drugs , interesting... Whether that study can be applied to North America , not sure

    My point is that there is a social failing in our society towards our children

    An education for parents in food and cooking would help and that education should be adapted to financial situations of the parents
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No, the store owners pay for your use of FREE Internet through either directly paying for it or their rent. As a customer, if you are one, you pay in your trade. However, malls are Privately Owned free-spaces and so most anyone could go there and use the Internet. I prefer to have a coffee and generally read a paper magazine like Scientific American. My purchase of a product without using the Internet is subsidizing its use for people who can't afford to or don't buy something.

    The mall could require an item be purchased prior to Internet use. None do that I patron. nevertheless, here we have private social organization coming together through the free market providing free access to information. Try getting that from the State and you'll get an illusion of free, but it won't be free - far from it, such as a Library. The costs of building and maintaining such Public institutions are subsidized by the next generation as the State overly pays for the service ultimately robbing THAT generation of the use of the Library (as the Progressive State cuts back and closes these buildings) BUT NOT THE DEBT.

    NOT THE DEBT

    They get stuck paying through the nose (see University degrees in uselessness and rent seeking degrees like Law and various Medical degrees).


    Sure from your point of view life probably seems right with all these social/Public safety nets around. Yes, YOU got to use a "free" Library. Not this generation, and they probably wouldn't want to. What you fail to acknowledge is that BONDS are used to pay for them and THAT IS MOOCHING. Inflation is used to pay for those - That is MOOCHING. The very definition of mooching is stealing.

    This is NOT the case in the mall. The mall is privately owned and if it tries to entice customers with too many free things it is punished because those same customers won't want to pay for the overly priced goods (as the costs are defrayed into the increases in rent and into products). Or stores wont want to open in this overly pricey mall. This IS why we invented money. Which is why malls are "relatively" nice ......whereas State buildings are palatial edifices .............to their own waste and power.

    Is some of this starting to get through to you?
    Ok.

    No I don't. I said and mean Capitalism and free-markets for free trade. Women gained legal independence as a natural outcome of Capitalism. The same sort of rights were extended to women in Rome 2000 years ago. Not because Romans where socialists but because they had a few generations of saved Capital. That Capital freed Roman women. In the end, the Romans suffered from the same Progressive socialist demagoguery as we do now and we both know how that story ended. And what happened to the freedoms gained by women? They went with the Prosperity.

    Capitalism and Corporatism are two separate concepts. Capitalism has to do with capital - private property, services and goods and profit. Corporations are legal entities. Capialism in no way requires that the owners of private goods and services be protected through incorporation.



    I maintain that the poor are helped BY Capital which is generated through free trade Capitalism. I have no idea where you think the resources come from to help the poor? Do you think the State (a group of unproductive humans) magically wave a wand and resources just appear?

    I think you're in for a rude awakening shortly. You're going to see how the State treats the poor (socialism) soon enough as I believe this last generation spent, inflated and sold the farm paying for 1960s Progressivism and ongoing nearly century long Militarism. Lets watch and see what your lovely Leaders do. No they're not sociopathic Demagogues. They're Progressive Socialists... Oh wait, is there a difference?

    AND while the inevitable plays out - be sure to notice the marked difference of FREE Internet provided in Privately owned malls and how private charity and private community thinks and acts.IF there's any of these institutions even left around to pick up the emerge slack left as the State recedes from providing social services.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The picture he painted was of a baby alone in a closed upper room crying. when he entered the room the baby looked thin and was crying laying naked on a pile of refuse covered in dried feces. The mother and her crackhead friend seemed less than indifferent. Is the story true? Hard to say. But there's nothing extraordinary in it these scenes liter America in cities across the US.
     
  8. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,600
    Radical parenting?

    Briefly: My daughter's attitude has soured lately, and there are plenty of reasons—including the biochemical—why.

    I suppose I could discipline her in some specific way, though I'm not sure what punishment to issue against a child between thelarche and menarche whose brain is swimming in chemical chaos.

    In the end, I decided to read the signs. The observation was that her attitude fell in response to my own parental sloth. The hypothesis, then, was to spend more time with my daughter; making breadsticks, playing video games, reading, &c. Early empirical outcome suggests success.

    We'll see how it goes, but playing Lego Harry Potter last night turned out to be a much more enjoyable remedy to her attitude than trying to punish the scowls off her face.

    And, besides, what is the conditioning value of punishment in such a case? How dare you undertake biological processes without my approval!

    I know. Radical parenting. But what can you do? Beat it out of her? Imprison her in her room? Steal away all the fun in her life until she cooperates? I got myself into this parenting deal, and it's not so much getting myself out. Rather, parenthood is about the child, so the most obvious answer is to attempt to be a better parent.

    Violence begets violence. Anger begets anger. Let us hope love, trust, and compassion beget more of their own.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Most American children are just fine. The bad ones are so much more noticeable than the good ones, that they give the impression that their numbers are greater than they are.

    I just spent five hours flying from California to Maryland. Even though I bought my ticket several months in advance, for some strange reason I was seated in the rear of the aircraft near the bathrooms, where the airlines endeavor to put passengers who are flying with young children.

    During the entire flight, the kid in the seat behind me was screaming. I was ready to write to my Congressman and urge him to draft a bill that would make it illegal for children to fly. But then I got up to use the bathroom and when I stepped into the aisle I saw that there were FIVE other children in seats near mine, and not one of them had behaved badly. I also overheard the parents of that one kid talking, and it turned out that this was his second flight in one day. Even I start screaming after spending that much time crammed into today's Lilliputian airline seats. I imagined the kid's plane FINALLY landing, getting off, and thinking, "Oh boy, that's over. We get to go home!" And then somebody puts him on another plane??? I actually started feeling sorry for the poor guy. Those other five kids? Their parents were doing an excellent job, just like most parents do. We never notice people who are doing things right, just the assholes.

    And of course muckrakers like Pravda and Al Jazeera have agendas that require making America look bad, so their coverage is maybe just a teeny bit unbalanced. Give those writers some sympathy. It must be really hard to make life in America look WORSE than life in Russia or some shit-hole Islamic theocracy where fornication and music are illegal.

    That said, there are indeed plenty of bad children in the USA. Of course correlation does not imply causation, but still it's useful to review the correlations that we find.
    • The vast majority of men in America's prisons were abused during childhood. And I'm not talking about being yelled at or slapped for mouthing off, but real abuse, the kind that leaves both physical and mental scars.
    • Homes with no father or other male role model turn out a disproportionate number of bad male children. Mothers are wonderful and we love them, and most of them manage to raise daughters decently, but dammit, kids need a father too, especially boys. You can blame much of this on the War On Drugs, a tool of racism that focuses disproportionately on Afro-Americans: an Afro-American drug user is eight times as likely to be in prison as a Euro-American. When they get out they can't get a job and no woman wants them.
    • Our population has become too mobile. Of course I'd hate to live in the era when most people died in the same town they were born in. But in today's America, the average family pulls up stakes and moves to a new town about every eight years, so the breadwinner(s) can advance their careers. What a horrible life for children, always having to say goodbye to their friends and start out fresh as "the new kid" in a strange place. I know a guy who simply has no close friends because his parents moved around a lot. He found it easier to not form friendships than to endure the pain of losing them. Now as an adult he finds he doesn't have the personality to commit himself to a friendship. This guy is okay, but I've met other "military brats" who didn't turn out so well.
    • Finally, our culture has accelerated the pace of technological innovation, so we adults (especially us old folks) are bewildered by modern life, while the children adapt to it readily. This creates a huge chasm between parents and their children, in addition to introducing very young children to a "community" of "friends," even the best of whom are hidden behind a screen and only showing a tiny bit of their whole personality and character. Yet these people may have more influence over children than their own parents.
     
  11. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    I could curse you out, but I will not. Have you lived in Russia to think it is worse than America? Do you always assume that happiness in a country is measured by the content of money in the average citizens' pockets? Because life in Russia is much more full and happier place than one in USA, drowned in its own laws, regulations, and limitations. I know, I lived there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And of course seeing the actual reality in America is making "things look bad". While CNN and FOX do not have any agendas to make Russia look bad. of course. right? of course.


    CNN on USA "100 great things about America":
    http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/100-great-things-america.fortune
    ............MESSAGE: USA government is great

    CNN on Russia "Russia protesters demand Putin's resignation"
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/12/world/europe/russia-protest/index.html
    ............MESSAGE: Russian government is evil

    CNN on USA "Brooke Baldwin talks to Greg Miller about the female CIA operative at the heart of the hunt for Osama Bin Laden"
    http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/12/nr-bin-laden-miller.cnn?iref=allsearch
    ............MESSAGE: US secret service doing great job

    CNN on Russia "Russian state involved in ex-KGB agent Litvinenko's death, lawyer says"
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/europe/uk-russia-litvinenko-death/index.html?iref=allsearch
    ............MESSAGE: Russia secret service is evil


    nope? no hidden agendas?
     
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No, but 4,500 years ago our ancestors invented a wonderful technology called "writing" that allows us to communicate with people in other places. And more recently, newer technologies were invented that let us talk to them and even see them. I've never lived in Alaska either, but I know very well that I don't want to.

    I agree that being rich doesn't automatically make a man happy. But there's a certain level of prosperity below which life becomes very difficult. I think the average Russian is now above that level but there are also some poor people both there and in the USA.

    Happiness is also a matter of freedom and opportunity. I'm a musician. When I see members of a rock and roll band prosecuted and imprisoned for singing songs critical of the government, it's impossible for me to respect that government.

    I'm curious as to why you left, if you found life there so full and happy. I would never leave the USA permanently. I have been to many other countries and found some of them to be quite nice (I loved Spain and Italy and I would probably love the Czech Republic now that communism is gone), but I still like it here better.

    Of course the more sensationalistic media in the USA do the same thing. Fox is a comedy channel, not a news channel. Nobody with an IQ above 90 takes them seriously. I'm not too familiar with CNN. I have always said that TV news is for people who can't read, and cable TV news is for people who find network TV news a little too complicated.
     
  13. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,789
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I just learned that suicide is the #6 cause of death in Russia. What a happy place! (Washington Post 20121214)
     
  15. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    American are not the happy people in the world either .


    s
    Citizens of poorest countries are happiest in the world
    02.01.2013

    Citizens of poorest countries are happiest in the world. 49008.jpeg

    Gallup, The American Institute of Public Opinion, conducted a study to find out which country had the happiest citizens. The survey results were striking as it was discovered that citizens of the poorest countries were the happiest. The list of the happiest countries was topped by El Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Trinidad and Tobago. What is the secret of Hispanic happiness?

    Specialists of the Gallup Institute released data from a study conducted back in 2011. Experts conducted a survey in 148 countries around the world to find out in which countries people were more likely to experience positive emotions. People were interviewed in person and on the phone, and each person was asked five questions, all about the ways they spent the previous day.

    Social scientists asked whether the respondents felt joy, whether they felt rested, and how often they laughed and smiled. In addition, the researchers asked whether their interviewees felt respected by their peers, as well as whether they learned something new the day before.

    According to the Gallup, the happiest people on the planet were the citizens of El Salvador, Panama and Paraguay. These three countries were the "happiest". The top ten included 7 countries in Latin America - in addition to the above, Venezuela, Ecuador, Guatemala and Costa Rica made the list. Russia, however, did not even make it to the top one hundred of the happiest countries, occupying one of the lowest spots (along with Iran and Algeria).

    The Russian might commit more might commit more subside because they grew up in a atheistic environment , so they don't have the fear of God to take away a life when they are frustrated and unhappy
     
  16. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    and you would obviously say the same about Japan. After all they are more developed than USA or Europe.

    and "Washington Post" uses ancient handpicked data of worse rates. The suicide rate for Russia now is 11th place, the births has exceeded mortality rates just recently reversing the trends of a stagnating population. The growth rate of population is now 0.15%, this rate is increasing almost exponentially per year. In fact you are living and witnessing a rebirth of a nation, anew, stronger, and more free.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
     
  17. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
     
  18. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Let's put a little spin on things by painting a picture of parental discipline as "beating", shall we? A picture paints a thousand words, they say. In the absence of a picture, paint one. Get them punters imagining bruised and crying kiddies, that'll do it.

    What are you saying here, Tiassa? That every theory should be judged solely upon what date it might have been espoused? That a theory is correct simply because it is the most current?

    Yes. So let us ignore all those... quasi-relevant points, and concentrate solely upon making the quoted author appear a bit of a loon. Nothing like a bit of the old reds under the bed scare to stir up the emotions, is there.
    I do adore the strikeouts. Wassamatta, can't say what ya wanna say?

    Fire away with that ol' ad hom, Tiassa. We all know you're above all the self-referencing, don't we?

    Heh. I've had the word 'irony" thrown at me several times lately, but take out the "unique" from that particular sentence and there we have irony in all its glory. However, in the spirit of forum posting, I'll play.
    With particular reference to you, do you think "pontificating filibuster" is polite enough?
    The word pontificating appears to describe you quite adequately in itself, but I felt compelled to add the "filibuster" because it does tend to add a certain depth to things. You could, after all, talk the arse off a donkey without ever actually achieving anything at all. Yes, I know, it is a little untidy having those two words together but... well. You know. Shoe fits. And I never have claimed to be a literary giant.

    Naturally enough, when we're talking about distaste for a particular viewpoint, it's easy enough to make subtle references to an individual's intellectual capacity. I do it myself. But here, you've engaged in little more than a character assassination without presenting any particular points of your own simply because you don't like what he's saying. And you took half a page to do it.

    It's vaguely interesting that all the rules against ad-hom don't appear to apply when one is addressing comments made outside this site.... but then I suppose that's pretty much your style, isn't it. Self-percieved Big Fish in a Small Pond.
    Phht.

    I remember a time when we didn't have 12 year olds running around with knives. When you could catch a train and be fairly confident you wouldn't be harassed by minors. Where kids were fairly polite, and at least marginally respectful of their elders. Could go on a bit, but I'm sure you get the gist.

    Now what do you actually have to say, Tiassa?
    Rouse yourself, boy. Prove your elders wrong.
    Just for once, stand up, get out, and take a look around you, and, if you're old enough, see if those 'net articles you're constantly referencing have anything in common with the world outside your window.

    Because from where I'm standing, things have changed quote a bit since the state assumed responsibility for the raising of children, disenfranchising parents in the process.
     
  19. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I've never seen a 12-year-old with a knife. I have seen 15-year-olds with knives. That was in high school... in 1958.

    I rode the D.C. Metro to and from work every weekday for eight years and I still ride it often in the evenings, usually catching the last train home. I have never been harrassed by minors or anybody else.

    Respect is something that must be earned. If you treat people (of any age) with respect, you're more likely to get it back. These days, many parents and other so-called "adults" treat kids like crap. The things they have to put up with in schools would make you angry and violent too. It's been well-documented that young kids are biologically programmed to start their day earlier than adolescents, yet they still make teenagers start school an hour earlier than their little brothers and sisters. If you made me get up an hour too early every day, I'd be pretty pissed off, uncooperative and disrespectful too.
     
  20. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    How nice for you.
    But seriously, Fraggle, if you're trying to say that kids (teens, in particular) are as disrespectful now as they were in 1958, then I'm afraid you're doomed to failure in convincing me. You may not have seen a 12-year old with a knife. But I have. So have many others. And it's the girls, too, now. Don't know what it's like in the good ole USA, but right here they're running in gangs, recently. And they don't care if you're a grandma heading down to the welfare office for her pension cheque... in fact, they're more likely to wait until after she's got it. Reckon you had quite so many old fellas getting beaten and robbed in their own homes back then?
    Or was it all just shoved under the carpet?

    ...I'm wondering if you're not just trying to challenge me, rather than actually thinking about it. I say this because I was always of the opinion you weren't quite that blind.

    This, we do agree upon. Completely.
    However, the problem now is that we are inundated with the little Nietzsche generations.
    They feel they're entitled to it, which is a new ballgame. That sense of entitlement (not only to respect, but across the board) is becoming more prevalent now than it was as little as two decades ago.

    Ok, so earlier you were trying to tell me that the kids haven't changed since 1958, and now you're saying the parents have... these days?

    Hell, I get angry just reading the news. And this place.

    Doesn't make me harass old people on trains.
     
  21. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Basically, if you want a modicum of insight into generational differences with regard to respect, just go play online computer games for a couple of months.
    See if you can guess as to who is under 30.

    Know what it will tell you?
    What happens when you take the behavioral inhibitors away.
     
  22. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,113
    Sorry to go back on topic for a minute, but...

    There is never a reason to hit a child. If you engage with your children they will not do "wrong" things. If you ignore them, neglect them or abuse them they will ALSO act "wrong", just as you have. The most powerful tool a parent has is the child's built - in Darwinian desire to emulate the parent. If you do not put up walls between you and your child AND you act in a 'proper' manner your child will copy that behavior. My parents beat me to a pulp whenever they were in a bad mood or had a bad day. It took me many years to get past that and many more to learn how to be a decent parent.

    I only "punished" my son once when he was about 4 years old with a 5 minute 'time out' sitting on the stairs for throwing a temper tantrum due to his keeping himself up too late the night before. We do not hit each other in my house. I am very strong and have been a martial arts practitioner for 39 years. If I hit someone I can break bones or kill them and I take that power very seriously. If I see you - an adult - hitting a child, I will intervene.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    *

    I have friends who lived in Russia and now live here in Detroit. They all agree that living in Detroit beats the heck out of living in Russia. That says a lot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , though I agree on the CNN thing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    I basically agree with that statement. However, I can understand the logic in what some parents say:

    It is useful for a child to grow up understanding that it is not impossible to make someone so angry that he'll lose his rationality and hit you.

    This is the basis of the legal concept of "fighting words" in the USA. Fighting words are one of the exceptions to the doctrine of free speech. In general, speech that is intended or likely to incite illegal activity or violence is not protected. You're specifically prohibited from:

    • Advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force
    • Committing fraud (lying in order to convince someone to do something that benefits you but harms, inconveniences or impoverishes him
    • Conspiring with others to commit a crime
    • Encouraging people to riot
    • Speaking fighting words (defined as speech that is likely to make people nearby so angry as to erupt into violence, such as a Euro-American walking into a bar in an Afro-American neighborhood and shouting, "I hate all you n*****s."
    Children may need to be taught that fighting words should never be used. Many will learn from a lecture. Others may only learn from the experience of screaming, "You're a hateful bitch and I wish you were dead," at their mother.

    Shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie theater is frequently presented as a separate category, but I see it as merely an instance of fraud. You lie to the moviegoers (saying the theater is on fire), thereby causing them inconvenience (interrupting the movie) or even harm (colliding in the dark, tripping over feet, asthma attack) in order to benefit yourself (the entertainment of watching them panic).

    Advocating the overthrow of the government by force might also be considered merely an extreme case of encouraging people to riot.

    Children should surely grow up knowing that they absolutely must not do any of these things.
     

Share This Page