there is a difference between understanding how the computer does what it does (and a logical extension of that is knowing how to change it should that be required), and actually attempting to do something via machine code. but you're right, modern day programming is a different beast than old school logic gate manipulation.
You can always spot a "over the squabbling" post as it normally sits at the end of a chain of AC's, normally followed by "THIS!" and also someones request to "mod parent up!"
Is that what you say when someone deprives YOU of your property to teach you a lesson? I doubt it.
first of, yes. someone will take my shit if i don't behave in society, i don't expect to be beaten though unless i give the authorities no choice and they need to physically control me, i use the same principal on my kid. Secondly toys are not a right in my house, they are a privilege. If I'm paying for his "good time" then you're damn right I'll take it away if he is giving me a "bad time".
And that is exactly the point. Some kids respond to corporal punishment. Some respond to mental punishment. A good parent will gauge what works for their kid and use what works. A bad parent will use what works for the parent.
no, all kids respond to corporal punishment as well as mental punishment, a bad parent will see one doesn't work as effectively and resort to smacking because its easier on the parent and it "works better"... or can i start kicking my dog because that's the only way it stops peeing on the carpet? because as long as its effective it doesn't matter that its unnecessary physical violence.
Look, I know there is a time and a place to smack kids, and i'm not saying that you should never smack your kids. But some parents see kids as physical violence is the only way to "sort someone out" which is almost always the wrong way to go about fixing any behavioral problems. I'll give you the direct quote that offended me.
My niece on the other hand needs a good hard ass whooping as that seems to be the only thing that works for punishment.
no child needs a smack, if you need to smack a child it means you've failed in providing alternative solutions to the problem without resorting to violence. It's a failure of the parent (which happens, we aren't perfect), not the child. Normally the failure is being consistent with other punishments, where as a smack is always consistent, so it appears to work the best.
If its not acceptable to do to your pets, why is it acceptable to do to a human being?
Because imprisonment and theft are so much better at instilling trust. You think that robbing your child sends the right message though? You think that incarceration sends the right message? The association of discomfort with bad behavior is a nasty business. It isn't pleasant any way you do it. If it was, it wouldn't work.
toys are a privilege for good behavior, its not robbing when they get taken away because of bad behaviour. time out i guess is a kind of "imprisonment", but doesn't violate the child's personal space or hurt the feeling of being secure in their own house.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society where what works for most parents is to harm their child, and as long as it is mental abuse, so there is no physical evidence it was them that screwed their kid up, the parents blissfully continue on while patting themselves on the back and telling the other mental abusers that it is societies fault that their son is selling crack and their daughter is turning tricks.
You're describing excessive mental abuse and some how associating that with discipline that doesn't involve hitting a child. there is just as much chance of physical abuse as mental abuse in your example. I've experienced mental abuse so i know how damaging the "imprisonment" punishment is (locked in your room for weeks at a time), but a time out isn't the same at all. just like a smack isn't the same as a savage beating.
also the kids that turn out to be drug dealers or prostitutes normally have significant abuse problems across the spectrum (physical, emotional (or mental), sexual), with sexual abuse being the biggest contributor, followed by physical abuse. emotional abuse / mental abuse alone normally turns kids into people who struggle with relationships & trust.
Fair point, i was in a ranty mood yesterday and its been a sentiment that's annoyed me that "we can't over hall the system because good cops would get fired too and that's not fair" is often a defense for limited action against corruption, however is also very off-topic as you said.
I still had to have contact with them in some way and it was obvious to me that they were both intelligent and compassionate people thus my original post pointing out the fallacy of the parent's argument.
the problem is the us-vs-them mentality, while they consider you an upstanding citizen that they are protecting they will treat you great even minor infractions you can still be treated with respect as "everyone makes a mistake and forgets to indicate", however, if the cops see you as a criminal they get joy out of taking your liberties away & treating you like an animal. They talk about these sort of people as "the bad guys", which is the same way we dehumanize the enemy during war. the problem is you might not be a "bad guy" at all yet you are still treated like a criminal, because in their mind, you are and everyone would be better off if you were off the street, even if your only crime is to have plant material in your pocket.
talking to cops while your not considered "the bad guy" is a very different experience than talking to cops when you are considered "the bad guy".
I knew a cop, was the nicest guy to me, super helpful, gave me a lift through the city at peak hour so i didn't have to walk after he gave me a summons to court(i was a witness), however the way they treated the guy based off my statement (and a couple of statements from some minors) was a little scary. They basically went out of their way to ruin this guys life before so much as charging him with anything. I don't feel sorry for the guy because I KNOW what he did and he deserves a lot worse, but the police don't, they only have my word to go on (and prior investigations for a similar crime) for an event that happened over 10 years ago and it was 2 years later before the guy pleaded guilty to indecent dealings with a minor.
This is in Australia, Hardly a hub of corrupt officials. but being an intelligent & compassionate individual doesn't stop someone from causing abuse to "the bad guys". in fact being compassionate would probably make the problem worse as they are going to be emotionally against "the bad guy" instead of remaining impartial.
I understand, however i think that your sister needs to assert the authority, not you. What you're doing when you're smacking someone elses kid is pain manipulation to control the situation, it does nothing to curb bad behaviour in the long term and in fact damages the child feeling of security with their parent and their trust in you and other adults.
If a smack is the only thing the kid responds to (which i find exceptionally hard to believe, 99% of the time its a failure of the parent to be consistent in other punishments) then it should be handled by the parent or someone acting in the capacity of a parent(step parent, etc. genuine domestic living situation) and not by a 3rd party relative.
I do prefer mental punishment. And obviously I consider humans quite a lot smarter than a worm, which is why mental punishments can work. And yes, a child will learn that doing something wrong = pain so don't do it.
but it shouldn't be used to curb undesirable behaviour, IMO smacking should only be used when the child needs to be physically controlled for their own safety (running across the road, etc.). Smacking because "you didn't do as you are told" sends the wrong message, although it is effective at regaining control, but if you have to smack your kid to bring them into line you've already lost control of them and your "pre-smack" routine needs to be addressed (although the original statement suggested that once a month the kid would get a smack, which implies that other methods are at least working). Getting someone else to hit your child because they aren't doing what they are told is 100x worse and isn't effective at all, it damages feeling secure with the parent, it damages trust with the other adult and does nothing to successfully curb undesirable behaviour in the long term.
its a little different when you aren't invaded by a superpower who has decided "its time for democracy". but make the choice and act upon it out of mutual benefit to the society that is planning on the change.
I'm disappointing you aren't willing to put your name against that comment Mr AC. Because IMO you're at least partially right. The kids can try and play the society game that we have laid out to them, or they can make their own rules and fight to have them apply instead. we like our rules so we apply them with force and fight back, but that doesn't make our society rules "right" any more then they are "wrong". there are winners and losers in any social contract, when the losers are sick of losing they stop playing by the rules, and the winners get angry because "but, we said that wasn't ok to do!". but pretending there is some "rules" to life that "everyone should follow" and those that don't are "evil scum" is ignorant to the complexity of even a basic animal let alone one as complicated as the exceptionally resourceful, extremely opportunistic naked ape.
if you've never had to rely on government handouts to eat, you're not in a position to condemn the actions of the less fortunate, its completely disheartening to have your survival reliant on a faceless entity who is willing and able to throw you to the dogs at a moments notice.
the riots may have occurred because people are selfish, but you can't stop people from being selfish, IMO social policy is what is wrong and what caused this issue. people are just people doing what they do to give them selves an advantage at life.
you're expected to pay into this society to help make things "better for everyone", and yet when you need help, then what? Imo this won't be the last high profile riot in western cultural hubs until the government gets a lot more social in their spending to offset the hardships that the financial crisis induces on the population.
The result is that they throw up their hands and call in the cops. But then the cops feel the need to justify their position, so they end up abusing children.
its a very rare day that a police officer will abuse a child. I'm sure there are instances but police (especially those trained in handling children) are actually very good at dealing with problem kids (better than parents or teachers in most cases). The problem isn't the police but the "justice" system removing the "they are just kids" emotional sentiment in handling the children, a fair chunk of cops are parents themselves.
I think the children are learning that they have no rights and they must comply and they always can be taken in by the cops, never mind what the infraction is. The children "is" learning intimidation by the state officials.
which is a sure fire way to make sure they aren't frightened of "cops" but still feel threatened when they are adults. nothing cured me of my fear of my intimidating step father like growing up and having the option of dishing back that same "force", it was never required but I'd be lying if i said i wasn't begging for an opportunity.
Great idea, and when the waste of humanity get hungry they won't riot or anything either, they will just quietly lie down and die because they wasted our time as a child!
Society means sharing, even with those you would rather not because they don't conform the way you want them too. chances are you've utilized a shared resource in an equally rude or obnoxious fashion, but i don't think banning you from driving for life(and all the jobs that this requires) is an appropriate response to tailgating.
also, i take great personal offense at implying pot as a common denominator to the unwilling & uneducated, I think its uninformed and your perpetuating a false stereotype.
As you knew your police officers on a personal level I'd say you have a conflict of interest, even bin-laden had friends.
But if my reputation and career can get disrupted by the company i work for at a moments notice if my boss is corrupt, then i hardly think a little collateral firing in the police department for a system wide overhaul to rid corruption is hardly a reason not to. "cops are people too" so why are they protected from the risks that all other citizens face just because "there are good cops too"
Yay for physical violence towards minors! smacking your own kids is one thing but smacking someone elses (even a relative) is another, or is it ok if touch your bum because your mum said it was ok?
In their world either you get everything handed to you or you are unlucky and are a loser. Nobody gets ahead by being smart and working hard - that's for losers.
Sad, but true, the best a lot of the current generation have to look forward to is corporate slavery and they are acutely aware of it."
I agree with your premise to a point, but your application seems to be based on ideologies.
In context of this thread, you need to decide if children are humans or not. If they are, then they should have freedom of choice. If they aren't then they shouldn't be held responsible for any mischief that they do while being confined against their will at school.
being human gives you no freedom of choice, any freedom you gain is what has been allocated to you by authority for their mutual benefit or you've taken and asserted for yourself (going against what someone has told you to do, but have the balls to stand up and fight for it). Why should school be exempt from this reality of life?
in the end, i make my kids go to school because when they are children there is no better time to go to school, and it IS my job to raise my child in preparation for his future, part(most) of that future will involve doing things he doesn't want to do. I wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't give him the mental tool set required for him to achieve what he wants to achieve.
most of the problem students are normally brats who get away with anything at home, it will be the same students who don't want to go to school, and i think the benifits to society by forcing this type of kid to grow up far outweighs
And that is exactly my point. The school terrorizes the student with impossible requirements. Nobody can equally well comprehend everything - even teachers don't know each other's subject. But a student must know it all. You'd be a torturer if you punish your dog for his inability to fly like a bird. For some strange reason this is a noble endeavor when applied to children.
When my school days were over I left the building the very same minute and never looked back. I have no fond memories of the place that forced me to memorize poems or to run fast or to discuss nonexistent feelings of fictional literary protagonists. Since then I have better things to do; I learn still, but I learn what I want to learn; the rest can go to hell and beyond.
sounds to me like school taught you an important lesson then, notably what you are good at and more importantly, where you will struggle and probably isn't right for your future. Also learning humility (not being able to achieve everything asked of you) isn't a negative thing.
And what punishment are you talking about? I never got punished for getting an answer wrong. I had to do the work again most of the time, but how is that different to real life? so unless some borderline illegal shit is occurring in your school?
just because an event is obvious doesn't make it non news worthy, Especially when event is actually quantified.
or do you get up in arms when you see news articles like "bad weather destroys port" because "this isn't news, we know that bad weather can cause damage."
I think you need to learn the difference between news and unexplained phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
there is a difference between understanding how the computer does what it does (and a logical extension of that is knowing how to change it should that be required), and actually attempting to do something via machine code. but you're right, modern day programming is a different beast than old school logic gate manipulation.
You can always spot a "over the squabbling" post as it normally sits at the end of a chain of AC's, normally followed by "THIS!" and also someones request to "mod parent up!"
also, mod parent up!
Is that what you say when someone deprives YOU of your property to teach you a lesson? I doubt it.
first of, yes. someone will take my shit if i don't behave in society, i don't expect to be beaten though unless i give the authorities no choice and they need to physically control me, i use the same principal on my kid. Secondly toys are not a right in my house, they are a privilege. If I'm paying for his "good time" then you're damn right I'll take it away if he is giving me a "bad time".
And that is exactly the point. Some kids respond to corporal punishment. Some respond to mental punishment. A good parent will gauge what works for their kid and use what works. A bad parent will use what works for the parent.
no, all kids respond to corporal punishment as well as mental punishment, a bad parent will see one doesn't work as effectively and resort to smacking because its easier on the parent and it "works better"... or can i start kicking my dog because that's the only way it stops peeing on the carpet? because as long as its effective it doesn't matter that its unnecessary physical violence.
Look, I know there is a time and a place to smack kids, and i'm not saying that you should never smack your kids. But some parents see kids as physical violence is the only way to "sort someone out" which is almost always the wrong way to go about fixing any behavioral problems. I'll give you the direct quote that offended me.
My niece on the other hand needs a good hard ass whooping as that seems to be the only thing that works for punishment.
no child needs a smack, if you need to smack a child it means you've failed in providing alternative solutions to the problem without resorting to violence. It's a failure of the parent (which happens, we aren't perfect), not the child. Normally the failure is being consistent with other punishments, where as a smack is always consistent, so it appears to work the best.
If its not acceptable to do to your pets, why is it acceptable to do to a human being?
Because imprisonment and theft are so much better at instilling trust. You think that robbing your child sends the right message though? You think that incarceration sends the right message? The association of discomfort with bad behavior is a nasty business. It isn't pleasant any way you do it. If it was, it wouldn't work.
toys are a privilege for good behavior, its not robbing when they get taken away because of bad behaviour. time out i guess is a kind of "imprisonment", but doesn't violate the child's personal space or hurt the feeling of being secure in their own house.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society where what works for most parents is to harm their child, and as long as it is mental abuse, so there is no physical evidence it was them that screwed their kid up, the parents blissfully continue on while patting themselves on the back and telling the other mental abusers that it is societies fault that their son is selling crack and their daughter is turning tricks.
You're describing excessive mental abuse and some how associating that with discipline that doesn't involve hitting a child. there is just as much chance of physical abuse as mental abuse in your example. I've experienced mental abuse so i know how damaging the "imprisonment" punishment is (locked in your room for weeks at a time), but a time out isn't the same at all. just like a smack isn't the same as a savage beating. also the kids that turn out to be drug dealers or prostitutes normally have significant abuse problems across the spectrum (physical, emotional (or mental), sexual), with sexual abuse being the biggest contributor, followed by physical abuse. emotional abuse / mental abuse alone normally turns kids into people who struggle with relationships & trust.
I still had to have contact with them in some way and it was obvious to me that they were both intelligent and compassionate people thus my original post pointing out the fallacy of the parent's argument.
the problem is the us-vs-them mentality, while they consider you an upstanding citizen that they are protecting they will treat you great even minor infractions you can still be treated with respect as "everyone makes a mistake and forgets to indicate", however, if the cops see you as a criminal they get joy out of taking your liberties away & treating you like an animal. They talk about these sort of people as "the bad guys", which is the same way we dehumanize the enemy during war. the problem is you might not be a "bad guy" at all yet you are still treated like a criminal, because in their mind, you are and everyone would be better off if you were off the street, even if your only crime is to have plant material in your pocket.
talking to cops while your not considered "the bad guy" is a very different experience than talking to cops when you are considered "the bad guy".
I knew a cop, was the nicest guy to me, super helpful, gave me a lift through the city at peak hour so i didn't have to walk after he gave me a summons to court(i was a witness), however the way they treated the guy based off my statement (and a couple of statements from some minors) was a little scary. They basically went out of their way to ruin this guys life before so much as charging him with anything. I don't feel sorry for the guy because I KNOW what he did and he deserves a lot worse, but the police don't, they only have my word to go on (and prior investigations for a similar crime) for an event that happened over 10 years ago and it was 2 years later before the guy pleaded guilty to indecent dealings with a minor.
This is in Australia, Hardly a hub of corrupt officials. but being an intelligent & compassionate individual doesn't stop someone from causing abuse to "the bad guys". in fact being compassionate would probably make the problem worse as they are going to be emotionally against "the bad guy" instead of remaining impartial.
I understand, however i think that your sister needs to assert the authority, not you. What you're doing when you're smacking someone elses kid is pain manipulation to control the situation, it does nothing to curb bad behaviour in the long term and in fact damages the child feeling of security with their parent and their trust in you and other adults.
If a smack is the only thing the kid responds to (which i find exceptionally hard to believe, 99% of the time its a failure of the parent to be consistent in other punishments) then it should be handled by the parent or someone acting in the capacity of a parent(step parent, etc. genuine domestic living situation) and not by a 3rd party relative.
I do prefer mental punishment. And obviously I consider humans quite a lot smarter than a worm, which is why mental punishments can work. And yes, a child will learn that doing something wrong = pain so don't do it. but it shouldn't be used to curb undesirable behaviour, IMO smacking should only be used when the child needs to be physically controlled for their own safety (running across the road, etc.). Smacking because "you didn't do as you are told" sends the wrong message, although it is effective at regaining control, but if you have to smack your kid to bring them into line you've already lost control of them and your "pre-smack" routine needs to be addressed (although the original statement suggested that once a month the kid would get a smack, which implies that other methods are at least working). Getting someone else to hit your child because they aren't doing what they are told is 100x worse and isn't effective at all, it damages feeling secure with the parent, it damages trust with the other adult and does nothing to successfully curb undesirable behaviour in the long term.
its a little different when you aren't invaded by a superpower who has decided "its time for democracy". but make the choice and act upon it out of mutual benefit to the society that is planning on the change.
I'm disappointing you aren't willing to put your name against that comment Mr AC. Because IMO you're at least partially right. The kids can try and play the society game that we have laid out to them, or they can make their own rules and fight to have them apply instead. we like our rules so we apply them with force and fight back, but that doesn't make our society rules "right" any more then they are "wrong". there are winners and losers in any social contract, when the losers are sick of losing they stop playing by the rules, and the winners get angry because "but, we said that wasn't ok to do!". but pretending there is some "rules" to life that "everyone should follow" and those that don't are "evil scum" is ignorant to the complexity of even a basic animal let alone one as complicated as the exceptionally resourceful, extremely opportunistic naked ape.
if you've never had to rely on government handouts to eat, you're not in a position to condemn the actions of the less fortunate, its completely disheartening to have your survival reliant on a faceless entity who is willing and able to throw you to the dogs at a moments notice.
the riots may have occurred because people are selfish, but you can't stop people from being selfish, IMO social policy is what is wrong and what caused this issue. people are just people doing what they do to give them selves an advantage at life.
you're expected to pay into this society to help make things "better for everyone", and yet when you need help, then what? Imo this won't be the last high profile riot in western cultural hubs until the government gets a lot more social in their spending to offset the hardships that the financial crisis induces on the population.
if someone was taking your daughter you think they would leave out the front door? Policing theatrics doesn't solve societies problems.
The result is that they throw up their hands and call in the cops. But then the cops feel the need to justify their position, so they end up abusing children.
its a very rare day that a police officer will abuse a child. I'm sure there are instances but police (especially those trained in handling children) are actually very good at dealing with problem kids (better than parents or teachers in most cases). The problem isn't the police but the "justice" system removing the "they are just kids" emotional sentiment in handling the children, a fair chunk of cops are parents themselves.
I think the children are learning that they have no rights and they must comply and they always can be taken in by the cops, never mind what the infraction is. The children "is" learning intimidation by the state officials.
which is a sure fire way to make sure they aren't frightened of "cops" but still feel threatened when they are adults. nothing cured me of my fear of my intimidating step father like growing up and having the option of dishing back that same "force", it was never required but I'd be lying if i said i wasn't begging for an opportunity.
Great idea, and when the waste of humanity get hungry they won't riot or anything either, they will just quietly lie down and die because they wasted our time as a child!
Society means sharing, even with those you would rather not because they don't conform the way you want them too. chances are you've utilized a shared resource in an equally rude or obnoxious fashion, but i don't think banning you from driving for life(and all the jobs that this requires) is an appropriate response to tailgating.
also, i take great personal offense at implying pot as a common denominator to the unwilling & uneducated, I think its uninformed and your perpetuating a false stereotype.
someone please mod this up!
As you knew your police officers on a personal level I'd say you have a conflict of interest, even bin-laden had friends.
But if my reputation and career can get disrupted by the company i work for at a moments notice if my boss is corrupt, then i hardly think a little collateral firing in the police department for a system wide overhaul to rid corruption is hardly a reason not to. "cops are people too" so why are they protected from the risks that all other citizens face just because "there are good cops too"
Yay for physical violence towards minors! smacking your own kids is one thing but smacking someone elses (even a relative) is another, or is it ok if touch your bum because your mum said it was ok?
In their world either you get everything handed to you or you are unlucky and are a loser. Nobody gets ahead by being smart and working hard - that's for losers.
Sad, but true, the best a lot of the current generation have to look forward to is corporate slavery and they are acutely aware of it."
In context of this thread, you need to decide if children are humans or not. If they are, then they should have freedom of choice. If they aren't then they shouldn't be held responsible for any mischief that they do while being confined against their will at school.
being human gives you no freedom of choice, any freedom you gain is what has been allocated to you by authority for their mutual benefit or you've taken and asserted for yourself (going against what someone has told you to do, but have the balls to stand up and fight for it). Why should school be exempt from this reality of life?
in the end, i make my kids go to school because when they are children there is no better time to go to school, and it IS my job to raise my child in preparation for his future, part(most) of that future will involve doing things he doesn't want to do. I wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't give him the mental tool set required for him to achieve what he wants to achieve.
most of the problem students are normally brats who get away with anything at home, it will be the same students who don't want to go to school, and i think the benifits to society by forcing this type of kid to grow up far outweighs
And that is exactly my point. The school terrorizes the student with impossible requirements. Nobody can equally well comprehend everything - even teachers don't know each other's subject. But a student must know it all. You'd be a torturer if you punish your dog for his inability to fly like a bird. For some strange reason this is a noble endeavor when applied to children.
When my school days were over I left the building the very same minute and never looked back. I have no fond memories of the place that forced me to memorize poems or to run fast or to discuss nonexistent feelings of fictional literary protagonists. Since then I have better things to do; I learn still, but I learn what I want to learn; the rest can go to hell and beyond.
sounds to me like school taught you an important lesson then, notably what you are good at and more importantly, where you will struggle and probably isn't right for your future. Also learning humility (not being able to achieve everything asked of you) isn't a negative thing. And what punishment are you talking about? I never got punished for getting an answer wrong. I had to do the work again most of the time, but how is that different to real life? so unless some borderline illegal shit is occurring in your school?
So, did those many adults undergo some kind of brain trauma and forget the stuff they knew when they were in the 5th grade?
what, you didn't drink when you turned 18/21?
so apple is fine to make blacks pay extra too then? because apple can set a price at whatever they like right?
we should probably just cancel that free trade agreement then, seeings though it appears worthless.
If only someone who built consoles allowed you to install Other OSes...
Jesus, can you shut up?
just because an event is obvious doesn't make it non news worthy, Especially when event is actually quantified.
or do you get up in arms when you see news articles like "bad weather destroys port" because "this isn't news, we know that bad weather can cause damage."
I think you need to learn the difference between news and unexplained phenomenon.
better than greasing the palms of the finance / energy industry.
er, wouldn't they already be getting exploited by the government?