Should parents be fined when their kinds don't do their homework?

Originally posted by Leshy
You're starting to get the picture here.

I should hope so

[Haer]

If society says its the responsibility of the parent to raise the child, society should let the parent raise the child. In other words, if the parent does nt with for there child to do Homework, that should be allowed. If a parent wishes to smack a child, that should be allowed.

Ofcourse, this cannot be taken to say the Child has no rights. You cant break a childs neck for wetting the bed - Just limited rights until the age where they can make a "rational decision".

To put it simply, there is no "best way" to raise a child - Each child needs to be raised differently, and society should make it as easy for parents to raise there child as they beleive is best.

[mpr0733]

Originally posted by Matrim
It's become a small debate here in Norway because many people are worried that our children are becoming dumber and dumber.

Partly it's true, we don't need to have an education to survive, the government will throw oil money at us anyway till we drop.

Though since few of you are teachers or parents with kids in school, perhaps you don't give a lump of rags.


I am however worried that due to the wealth we have easily sucked from the oil, the Norwegian population will be dulled into thinking "it doesn't matter. WE HAVE THE OIL!!!" as an answer to any question that has to do with industry, education and concerns for the future.


And since this isn't leading anywhere, I'd like to ask you a question:


How do you percieve Norway? What is Norway to you?





Matrim

YOU'RE KILLING THE WHALES!!!1@

[Sub]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
A lack of manners and social responsibilty combined with a short term 'instant gratification' culture. The majority of which I blame on the pathetic 'little Johnny's just misunderstood' disease.

Why do you care so much about manners? They are just pretentious man-made things to try and divide society further.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Sub
Why do you care so much about manners? They are just pretentious man-made things to try and divide society further.

Manners help the world run smoothly. Opening a door to someone, or being polite don't really create an underprivilidged underclass do they?

[Sub]

Why will society crumble if people don't hold doors open for each other? Don't they have arms? When I wrote that post in haste I was actually thinking of table manners, which are probably the stupidest thing ever.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I never said it would crumble, only run more smoothly.

[Sub]

Gayle was implying that though:\

[Cyp]

Wouldn't parents do the homework, if there was a risk of getting fined if their kids didn't hand homework in?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Sub
Gayle was implying that though:\

Lack of manners on its own doesn't really do much, but its the lack of the associated altruism and the like in general that can cause social damage as it were.

[queball]

Originally posted by Nodrog

There is NO "rational" explanation for why not to take drugs, or not to steal etc. You can give reasons that appeal to common sense, but the best arguments are ones that convince someone that if they take some action they will die, or be unpopular.

Even people who claim to only listen to rational arguments are, I suspect, convinced by the rigorourness of the process of checking validity of an argument, and purely because of the way they have been taught about rationality.

I suspect scientists are convinced by the success of the scientific tradition and the manner they've been taught about science. I suspect logicians are convinced by the way they've been taught about logic. However hard they might claim to "believe" in something, I suspect it's purely a conditioned response.

So rational explanations will never be a cure-all. How do you show that planning for the future is rational, anyway? I would love to see you show a boy that he should save his pocket money rather than spend it on sweets without appealing to horror stories, or artifical feedback.

Brainwashing is neccessary. Brainwashing is neccessary. Brainwashing is neccessary. It's what society is based on. Without it, a child can only advance as fast as he can experience things, and so can never learn how to react to things on a greater timescale than the length of his experience.

And your whole idea of feedback is screwed - you are arguing that people CANNOT be conditioned by violence! Once the original threat of violence is removed, people can still remain conditioned, that's the whole point.

[Dante Hicks]

Parents could be fined, but only if they agreed with it when the sent their children to school. And it'd have to be non-compulsary schooling, since otherwise it'd be stupid.

I've often thought about this kind of behavioural modification policy. It seems pointless and rarely appears to work. If we must be so concerned with children's standards, why not pay parents for their children's good results? Admittedly it'd be regressive (taxation wise) and would probably encourage Japanese style extreme schooling. But still...

Obviously violence, irrationality and brutality can condition people. To suppose otherwise would be stupid. My wife is absolutley terrified of certain (absurd) situations for example, because of stupid "brainwashing" by her mother. The question is whether we wish to encourage this kind of parenting (or schooling) in a more just society.

I once read an awful pop-science article that said that there was a certain chemical in the brain that conditioned aversion to risk + propensity toward delayed gratification (I can't remember how they termed it). Apparently, it grew in life so older people were more averse to risk, while children were less. Children tend (obviously being children) to be more irrational - perhaps because of this magic chemical this drivel was on about. Perhaps not.

Certain behaviour modifiers probably do need to be irrational (built on scare stories) but the vast majority do not, especially in older children. It's counter productive otherwise. I remember when I was young being told that if I failed X or Y test I would be in big trouble, fail my life, etc, etc. I used to be sick in my stomach with worry about what would happen. As I got older, same message. Fail your SATs, fail your life. Fail your GCSEs, fail your life, etc, etc. By the time I got to my degree my subconscious was very much "**** you, I'm not falling for that" and I didn't worry at all the fact I had done revision or studying two days before my final exams.

As soon as children are old enough to understand reason, they are old enough to use it.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
By the time I got to my degree my subconscious was very much "**** you, I'm not falling for that"

Your subconscious sounds a lot like my conscious.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by queball
There is NO "rational" explanation for why not to take drugs, or not to steal etc. You can give reasons that appeal to common sense, but the best arguments are ones that convince someone that if they take some action they will die, or be unpopular.

Of course there is - self interest based on real life consequences, not artificially created ones. If you cant come up with any reasons why its 'bad' for someone to do something, then maybe you shouldnt be telling them not to do it.

Originally posted by queball

I would love to see you show a boy that he should save his pocket money rather than spend it on sweets without appealing to horror stories, or artifical feedback.

"Well you can buy sweets if you want, but if you do that you wont be able to afford that new toy you want. I'll tell you what; if you manage to save up half the money to buy it, I'll pay the other half for you". No need to appeal to artifically created punishments or lies, just a demonstration of the facts of reality, which a young child is perfectly able to understand.

Originally posted by queball
Brainwashing is neccessary. It's what society is based on.

I agree. However the problem is that youre coming from the position where you think that modern society is 'good' , whereas im coming from the position where I think its fundamentally broken and see this as being one of the main reasons why. Yes, if you want society to remain in the state it is currently in today you will have to use the methods that are currently being used to maintain it. However, I dont want it to. Thats the difference.

Originally posted by queball

Without it, a child can only advance as fast as he can experience things, and so can never learn how to react to things on a greater timescale than the length of his experience.

I dont see why.

Originally posted by queball
And your whole idea of feedback is screwed - you are arguing that people CANNOT be conditioned by violence! Once the original threat of violence is removed, people can still remain conditioned, that's the whole point.

In most cases it does work. However, it results in the kind of horrible society you currently have around you, and the few people it doesnt work on are likely to 'rebel' against the system causing people like Gayle to complain about "lack of discipline".

[queball]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Of course there is - self interest based on real life consequences, not artificially created ones. If you cant come up with any reasons why its 'bad' for someone to do something, then maybe you shouldnt be telling them not to do it.

I have reasons, but they aren't purely rational, they are what I would call pragmatic, they rely on values and opinions that can't really be argued for.

"Well you can buy sweets if you want, but if you do that you wont be able to afford that new toy you want. I'll tell you what; if you manage to save up half the money to buy it, I'll pay the other half for you". No need to appeal to artifically created punishments or lies, just a demonstration of the facts of reality, which a young child is perfectly able to understand.

They can understand that, but aren't you assuming the child already values getting that toy in the future? The PROBLEMS come when your child either doesn't believe in your consequences (I can get away with the perfect murder and no-one will catch me!) or doesn't care.

I agree. However the problem is that youre coming from the position where you think that modern society is 'good' , whereas im coming from the position where I think its fundamentally broken and see this as being one of the main reasons why. Yes, if you want society to remain in the state it is currently in today you will have to use the methods that are currently being used to maintain it. However, I dont want it to. Thats the difference.

I agree, too, but if you're raising a child I'm guessing you'll be raising him to live in modern society. And parents are, I suspect, just doing what they have been taught is right. But what's your alternative? Parents can't do much except providing money, food and a roof for a child and disciplining them. I think modern society is broken, but I think it's much better than a society where parents are afraid of interacting their child, don't know what to do, and just become apathetic.

I dont see why.

How would your child learn to value the medium to long term future? Would you let your reckless five year old join the circus, even though he's likely to transform into a donkey, etc? Wouldn't you stop him forcefully?

[Haer]

Originally posted by Nodrog
"Well you can buy sweets if you want, but if you do that you wont be able to afford that new toy you want. I'll tell you what; if you manage to save up half the money to buy it, I'll pay the other half for you". No need to appeal to artifically created punishments or lies, just a demonstration of the facts of reality, which a young child is perfectly able to understand.

You dont seriously beleive that works?

Ive seen my parents try that on younger siblings - It does nt work. They get the sweets every time, then end up complaing all day because they could nt get the toy.

[Monkeypimp]

Originally posted by Matrim



How do you percieve Norway? What is Norway to you?

A long long way away.




I live in New Zealand.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
I think modern society is broken, but I think it's much better than a society where parents are afraid of interacting their child, don't know what to do, and just become apathetic.

Whose suggesting they don't interact with their children? This strikes me as a bit of a straw-man.

For very young children, obviously yes they will need to be restrained. They can't necessarily understand why playing in the road might be a foolish idea, for example. But obviously "childhood" can be defined all the way upto 18 and crap parenting isn't just something that affects toddlers. (obviously)

[Dead_Meat]

I can see what you're trying to get at Nod, but it would seem that maybe not every child has your particular gift of being so incredibly independently minded that they can overcome whatever upbringing they've ever had and become a intraweb genius.

It would seem that you'd be happiest to leave the child in his crap-filled nappies, as, apparently, children are never too young to work out for themselves how the world works and, maybe, they should be left in isolated areas at young ages and made to make their own way home as this will build character.

As for discipline, hitting children is never the be-all and end-all of how to bring them up. If you think that letting them cut/burn/hurt/endanger themselves will produce free-thinking adults, good for you. Me, I'd guess they'd resent their own parents for the harm they've done to themselves and the fact they have no qualifications and can't hold down a job because they told the interviewer to 'mind his own fking business' at the interview.

Oh yeah, let kids do it all their way, I'm sure they'll turn out fine, if they live.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Dead_Meat
Oh yeah, let kids do it all their way, I'm sure they'll turn out fine, if they live.

Why do you all conspire to make Nodrog (who is effectively an Ayn Rand reading rightist) look reasonable?

[Dead_Meat]

Could you show me where I made Nod's argument reasonable?

Would it be too much to ask for you to actually read my post?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Dead_Meat
Could you show me where I made Nod's argument reasonable?

Were you go on about leaving babies in "crap filled nappies". This is silly and you know it. Taking someones argument to a silly place where no-one sensible would apply it doesn't particularly make your side seem particularly profound. Obviously children in nappies aren't at an age where they can really comprehend the full complexities of this world. But this thread originally started talking about children of school age. So it's reasonable to presume any arguments provided apply to school-age kids (mainly). Obviously I would still hold that babies are the best place to start with a rational rearing process, but clearly you can't debate with them, and neither can they see "reason" in the same way older children can.

My point didn't just apply to you - it applies to the rest of the reactionaries on this thread (lo Gayle!)

[Dead_Meat]

Nod has argued, in a roundabout way, that smacking children in the past indirectly led to the rise of the Third Reich, due to the 'sheep' factor.

If you think that isn't a tad OTT, my 'nappy' bit doesn't seem so bad.

[Leshy]

For the record, I think that several people on this thread are viewing the 'beating' of children as a standard form of penalty whenever a child does something wrong.

I am in no way advocating that you should beat your children for just about anything they do. I'd much rather use the term spanking if that didn't have some entirely different and rather scary associations in this particular environment. At any rate, what I am arguing for, is that it isn't wrong to spank a child when it has crossed a certain line of misbehaviour.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Leshy
For the record, I think that several people on this thread are viewing the 'beating' of children as a standard form of penalty whenever a child does something wrong.

It's just not about beating though. Various friends/family members that I know weren't necessarily beaten (some were, obviously) but still had fear used excessively as a tool when they were growing up - by parents and others.

This isn't a social-services type public broadcasting - I'm not advocating that people be punished or anything like that if they give their kids bull**** parenting (within reason, obviously). It's about what type of society we want to be building. One based on unquestioning yielding to authority or one based on reason and individual freedoms?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Nod, can I ask where you are getting your opinion on the behavoir of children from?

Your arguement of reasonable explaination:

Do your homework or you wont go to collage vs. Do your homework or i'll hit u.

It is fatally flawed. Even if a child is sensible enough to understand the 'proper' line of reasoning, they may not actually care about further consequences.

Eg. you explain to a child that is below the 50% border of intelligence that he needs to do his/her homework so they can go to collage and chances are they'll say: 'I don't care'

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
One based on unquestioning yielding to authority or one based on reason and individual freedoms?

A society based on 'unquestioning yielding to authority' is caused by extensive indoctrination - not by occasional physical punishment in case of serious misbehaviour.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
Eg. you explain to a child that is below the 50% border of intelligence that he needs to do his/her homework so they can go to collage and chances are they'll say: 'I don't care'

I'm not to sure if we should be forcing kids (or indeed, anyone) to learn about what they don't wish to learn.

I know what you are going to say tho. "LOL, and I guess we should make school voluntary! hehehehe!". But yeah, from a certain age (maybe 12, I'm not 100% sure) school should be entirely voluntary.

From Leshy:
A society based on 'unquestioning yielding to authority' is caused by extensive indoctrination - not by occasional physical punishment in case of serious misbehaviour.

It depends what a child does of course. I wouldn't have a major problem with someone giving their kid a light whack if the kid had been violent to a younger child. But there's a world of difference between society (in the form of schools, etc) drumming in irrational drivel into children's minds.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I know what you are going to say tho. "LOL, and I guess we should make school voluntary! hehehehe!". But yeah, from a certain age (maybe 12, I'm not 100% sure) school should be entirely voluntary.

Why don't you bring back the pits so they have somewhere to work as well?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I know what you are going to say tho. "LOL, and I guess we should make school voluntary! hehehehe!". But yeah, from a certain age (maybe 12, I'm not 100% sure) school should be entirely voluntary.

Brilliant idea! Hordes of 12-whatever year olds roaming the streets!

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I know what you are going to say tho. "LOL, and I guess we should make school voluntary! hehehehe!". But yeah, from a certain age (maybe 12, I'm not 100% sure) school should be entirely voluntary.

You do understand how stupid most twelve years old are, and when presented between going to school and doing nothing, they would basically do nothing?

You would probably be able to get rid of the state schools sector overnight, actually.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You do understand how stupid most sixteen years old are, and when presented between going to school and doing nothing, they would basically do nothing?

fixed

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Nodrog
fixed

16 yo's have skillz

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
But there's a world of difference between society (in the form of schools, etc) drumming in irrational drivel into children's minds.

I wouldn't call an education irrational drivel.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Leshy
I wouldn't call an education irrational drivel.

He does have a point though, it's more to do with what gets taught in state schools in the UK than a comment on education in general

Personally I think no-one should be allowed to leave school without at least a grounding in calculus, logic, and correct English.

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
He does have a point though, it's more to do with what gets taught in state schools in the UK than a comment on education in general

Granted, the education provided does need to live up to a certain quality.

Personally I think no-one should be allowed to leave school without at least a grounding in calculus, logic, and correct English.

I wonder how some people make it through life lacking some of those skills.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Leshy
I wonder how some people make it through life lacking some of those skills.

Obviously the English component only applies to English speaking countries. Thought I'd better mention that

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Obviously the English component only applies to English speaking countries. Thought I'd better mention that

To be honest, I'd be in favour of English being a standard part of education in any country.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Leshy
To be honest, I'd be in favour of English being a standard part of education in any country.

cultural imperialist!

Originally posted by Leshy
To be honest, I'd be in favour of English being a standard part of education in any country.

I second that oppinion, nothing worse then going on vacation, being able to speak three languages almost fluently and finding out the turds over there can only speak their own language: gibberish.

Hmm anecdote (sp?) ahoy:


We went to gran canaria last year and we had to pay for the busfare or something. Since the guy driving the bus was short of change, my dad offered to exchange some money, because we had plenty of small change.

The bussdriver being a complete and utter retard and not being able to speak a single word english, didn't get it. Instead he took my dad's money and thus we paid double LOL. I swear my dad was about to spontaneously combust after that whole ordeal.

/edit/

well at least the busdriver had some small change after that

/edit/

Originally posted by Asper
I second that oppinion, nothing worse then going on vacation, being able to speak three languages almost fluently and finding out the turds over there can only speak their own language: gibberish.

Hmm anecdote (sp?) ahoy:


We went to gran canaria last year and we had to pay for the busfare or something. Since the guy driving the bus was short of change, my dad offered to exchange some money, because we had plenty of small change.

The bussdriver being a complete and utter retard and not being able to speak a single word english, didn't get it. Instead he took my dad's money and thus we paid double LOL. I swear my dad was about to spontaneously combust after that whole ordeal.

/edit/

well at least the busdriver had some small change after that

/edit/

In short, the busdriver pretended not to understand and your dad got played?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
You do understand how stupid most twelve years old are, and when presented between going to school and doing nothing, they would basically do nothing?

You would probably be able to get rid of the state schools sector overnight, actually.

If it happened overnight, yes certainly. But if it was part of a more general social change, I'm fairly confident that most people would elect to stay in school.

School at the moment is awful for almost everyone so of course people would want to leave. If school was less grinding and evil then more people would want to stay.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Brilliant idea! Hordes of 12-whatever year olds roaming the streets!

Does Britain become a Clockwork Orange type society during the 8 weeks or so during summer holidays when 12 year olds run amok? I must have missed that. If the only way we can hope to restrain our youngsters is effectively forcing them into a building for 8 hours a day, then why not cut out the educational pretext and call it Day-Prison?

Once again, if our economy was restructed the gulf between free-time and work wouldn't be so vast, so the ideas 13 year olds undertaking (say) minor amounts of work wouldn't matter. Of course, if their parents want to pay them (through food and so forth) they can. If parents want to make this payment conditional on their kids attending school, they can. But I see no rational reason to legally force people to go to a place where they don't want to be, where they merely disrupt others education and ocassionally brutalise teachers.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Once again, if our economy was restructed the gulf between free-time and work wouldn't be so vast

what does this mean?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
what does this mean?

In short the average working week wouldn't be 37 hours (or whatever it is). Right now the difference between being unemployed (or even a Uni student) and having a proper job (defined as something being able to earn you a living) is massive in psychological terms.

The idea of 12 years old working now is pretty horrific partially because work is so horrible.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
In short the average working week wouldn't be 37 hours (or whatever it is). Right now the difference between being unemployed (or even a Uni student) and having a proper job (defined as something being able to earn you a living) is massive in psychological terms.

So less work would be done, or what? I dont get it; if you want shops to be open during the day, youre going to have to have people working in them. If you want food, youre going to have to have people making it. If you want clothes, youre going to have to have people producing them. I dont see how you can simply cut down the amount of labour required to produce goods using magical marxian magic...

Since children of 12 would have no qualifications, they would most likely end up doing very bad work as they wouldnt really be able to do anything else (unless they showed great pontential and a company sponsered them through training or something). Not to mention that parents in 'poorer' families may force their children to drop out of school when they turn 12 and work to support the family (unless you plan on eliminating poverty as well)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
So less work would be done, or what?

Yes. There's a lot of work (it's very difficult to calculate obviously) that's completley unnecessary to be done. Off the top of my head I'd say 80% of the advertising industry, almost the entire military industry, a lot of the industries associated with IP, etc, etc.

More than this - the amount of labour "needed" isn't fixed. It's flexible and forever changing. Indeed, it's partially related to the cost of labour. For instance, in the UK our petrol stations are manned by (approximately) one or two staff. People pump their own petrol, etc. In South Africa (where the cost of labour is much lower) each petrol station is manned by about 10-12 people. People pump petrol for you, some guy offers to check your oil while another one will wipe your windscreen for a few Rand. Due to higher crime rates there's also a security guard (generally).

Now, our economy is structured to increase growth. Now, I'm all for growth but growth in this context doesn't necessarily mean higher standards of living. It might do, but once you factor in pointless production, inequality, etc, etc people generally don't feel the affects of growth. Which is why you get various idiot environmentalists arguing for zero growth.

Anyway...if our economy was structured slightly differently then our efforts could be put towards reducing the gross amount of labour needed. The amount of people (in Europe at least) actually producing goods is proportionally low, and seemingly declining. Food used to take 80% of our labour, now it takes 20% (if that). You get the idea.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
School at the moment is awful for almost everyone so of course people would want to leave. If school was less grinding and evil then more people would want to stay. Does Britain become a Clockwork Orange type society during the 8 weeks or so during summer holidays when 12 year olds run amok? I must have missed that. If the only way we can hope to restrain our youngsters is effectively forcing them into a building for 8 hours a day, then why not cut out the educational pretext and call it Day-Prison?

Quite a lot of the summer is designed to cater to this demographic. You'd need similar things in place the rest of the year.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Yes. There's a lot of work (it's very difficult to calculate obviously) that's completley unnecessary to be done. Off the top of my head I'd say 80% of the advertising industry, almost the entire military industry, a lot of the industries associated with IP, etc, etc.

But this is the kind of work that isnt actually that 'bad', comparatively speaking. Working in marketing is going to be a lot more preferably to shop floor or factory work to most people. The 'grunt work' is still going to be pretty much the same surely? (Also, I seriously doubt you could 'cut down' significantly on the jobs you listed, with the exception of IP)

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Anyway...if our economy was structured slightly differently then our efforts could be put towards reducing the gross amount of labour needed. The amount of people (in Europe at least) actually producing goods is proportionally low, and seemingly declining. Food used to take 80% of our labour, now it takes 20% (if that). You get the idea.

So how would everyone else earn money? If you were to cut down on all the jobs you think are superflous (which seems to be quite a large amount, given you expect to cut the average working week in half), and also manage to cut down on production labour, youre going to have a massive unemployment rate. What about the (probably large amount) of people who see the opportunity to work for 8 hours a day when everyone else is working nowhere near that, and earn enough money to "live like kings" (comparatively speaking)?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Quite a lot of the summer is designed to cater to this demographic. You'd need similar things in place the rest of the year.

That is hardly unthinkable. Also, I think we are overestimating the number of 12 year olds who would drop out. I'd very much imagine most would keep on with their studies (if school was not ****). Even for those who were doubtful, their parents would put pressure on them to continue (once again, they could choose to go and work instead, but I doubt they'd do that for the reasons outlined).

Once again, I think some people really need to try and avoid the knee-jerk anti-liberty reaction.
"We should legalise drugs."
"Don't be stupid, everyone will take heroin!"

"We should let kids have the choice to choose whether they continue their schooling from 12."
"Don't be stupid, they'd run amok!"

and so on.

[MrL_JaKiri]

My original post was deliberately sensationalist.