Toadfish Monastery

Incidentally, did you know that Respect for the Aged Day is a Public Holiday in Japan?

It appears that the Hominid line evolved into recognizable proto-humans about 500,000 years ago in Africa. This line spread into the habitable parts of Europe and Asia (Remember it was in an Ice Age back then) and appears to have speciated (again) into Neanderthals in Europe and Russia, and (possibly/probably [the fossil evidence is sparse]) a slightly more gracile branch in East Asia, and a much more gracile branch (our direct ancestors) remaining in Africa, by about 100,000 years ago.

The fossil/remains evidence found so far is most abundant for Neanderthals, reasonable for the African branch, and sparse for the Asian Branch.
In all of these groups however, the level of development is approximately the same:
1 Tools are simple, crude and uniform across the whole range of all branches.
2 Population densities are low (sparse) for all branches and groups are small (<40).
3 Few people lived beyond 40 years and none beyond 45.
4 Food was mostly fruits, nuts and vegetables with some poor wild grains, and small mammals, birds and shellfish for meat. Large mammals are only a very occasional part of the diet and none of the dangerous large mammals.
5 This description persists unchanged for tens of thousands of years. No innovation. No local cultural difference, or tool differences seen
6 Most of the older skeletal evidence of the more aged specimens show definite sign of disabling illnesses recovered from, and disabling injuries (broken legs etc. well healed.
The significance of the last point is that those people who survived into 'old age' would only have been able to do so if they were actively and carefully tended to and cared for by other members of their group. What was the evolutionary driver favoring 'caring for the aged in your group'?
(Here I'm getting speculative). I believe that the limited tools they had, local knowledge, social organisation and etc, were laboriously learned by primitive brains that, while they had for sound embryological reasons grown large (larger mostly than current humans), had not yet evolved the sophisticated self organising internal structures that modern human brains have (see Pinker The Language Instinct, and The Blank Slate). The older members of the group were valuable repositories of laboriously learned knowledge and skills, and if you cared for your elders, you got a huge advantage from being able to continue to learn from them.
And so it stayed for about 50,000 years.
Then the African branch started developing the internal brain structures pre-encapsulating the mechanisms of more mental processes. (I still like the name Julian Jaynes coined for these, long before modern Cognitive Neuroscience even began discovering and documenting them - Aptic Structures). These 'Aptic Structures' underwent an explosive development over the next ten thousand years, the effect of a 'runaway explosion' type of  evolutionary driver - positive feed back.
The Aptic structures allowed better and faster learning, which allowed (finally) innovation and the development of better tools, which eventually allowed the hunting of bigger and more dangerous game, and more social cohesion, larger groups, better food, which favored those who developed better Aptic Structures, which allowed.... and on and on.
The new evolving, gracile 'Cro Magnons' spread quickly into the same ranges as Neanderthals and the Asian branch species, and by 40,000 years ago they had out-competed and eliminated the Neanderthals, by 30,000 or so years ago they had done the same to the Asian Branch, and they continued evolving and spreading their range, and developing better tools and weapons at a (comparatively) frantic pace.
And still, the elders knew more, still it made good sense to tend and care for the elderly, those precious repositories of still more knowledge and wisdom and skill.
I'm going to skip over the next 30,000 years or so :).
But recently, the world has changed.
In only the last hundred years or so, with near universal literacy, and cheap printed books, there are better, cheaper and more reliable repositories of knowledge than old people.
In only the last 50 years, knowledge has started increasing so fast that now the elderly have to work hard to even understand what the younger adults take for basic.
In only the last 10 years or so, home computers, worldwide instantaneous communications and the Internet have made the locality of knowledge virtually irrelevant.

Old Farts like me and jjj and Sibling Chatty may, and I say may, earn the respect of our younger siblings, but they earn our respect, too. The yearning for the automatic respect for the aged, so clearly expressed by jjj, is now, for all of us, just that - a yearning. It no longer has the force of evolution demanding it.
And that may be a powerful evolutionary driver itself.

I'm not that big on automatic respect. I never gave it, I don't expect it.

Some humans are just well mannered at any age, others aren't. I never bothered to pretend to respect anyone that didn't have some basic respect for me, as a human, too. And age wasn't any part of that.

As a well brought up Southerner, I could FAKE it, with the same civility that I was expected to show ANYONE, older, my age or anything else, because Well Brought Up Children (of any age), in my family at least, weren't going to be rude or ill mannered. Grandma or God one would thump yer fool head until your ears rang...

Respect? You can damn well earn it, whether you're the car wash guy or the Preznit of the US. I'd probably have more respect for the car wash guy, though...

Quote from: The Meromorph (Quasimodo) on August 09, 2007, 04:30:24 AM
Incidentally, did you know that Respect for the Aged Day is a Public Holiday in Japan?

So is Children's Day. ;)

I do grant the elderly (hoy...  I won't put a definition on 'elderly'; it's a pure subjective judgement, but in general it'd be equivalent to the term 'senior citizen') more 'automatic' respect than younger people, on behalf of the foundation their generation laid for those after it.  Everyone gets extended a bit of basic respect for being a person until they show otherwise, but I'll add some extra patience for older folks, especially if they are showing some age-related reduction in their mental faculties.

I really do enjoy using my best manners around older folks, partly to go against curmudgeonly views of 'kids these days' but mostly because they generally appreciate it more than younger people!  Small gestures can really make their moment, if not their day. And I have great fun being a shining beam of politeness and goodwill to the crankier variety of senior citizen, because they seem to be taken quite aback with it (I think this particular brand gets their kicks by provoking negative reactions to confirm their negative worldview, so I flip the tables on 'em).

I don't assume that anyone has greater knowledge simply due to age, because as Mero points out, it's just not true these days.  The wisdom of age is a funny thing - I view it as a crystallization of knowledge and I've certainly experienced the early stages of it first-hand over the last decade in myself, but now I'm also starting to see the start of the later stages in my father in the last year or two.  The later stages are.... interesting.  The early bits seem to be a limiting process that filters out some of the wilder ideals and flights of fancy of adolescence, but the later seems to be a cutting away of risk tolerance (evidence to the contrary not withstanding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU5OaeYsP6Y)) and openess to new ideas.  It seems to be a rather personal process, and not age-dependant... my maternal grandmother was surfing the 'net and repairing discarded CD players at 93.

QuoteRespect? You can damn well earn it...

I agree to that, because I made the experience that when I perform my music and gain appreciation of the public, they turn receptive to what ever 'I gurgle'. Even the most stupid remarks are well received! Yet, most elderly's invaluable insight isn't perceived in that form by young people and that's why rock musicians are often more respected than their parents and teachers.

Rock musicians respected??

Lusted after, appreciated, though of as cool or RAD or whatever the current terminology, maybe, but I'd not put money on respected. There's a difference between liking someone's music and respecting them as a person...

I appreciate the talents of a lot of people that I don't respect.

Looking from the view of a "young fart", it is sometimes difficult to have respect for the elderly, especially those, who are nagging all the time about the terrible youth today etc. :) ... Kidding a little bit here.

But, one is true, due to the differences of the generations, young people slowly lose respect for the elderly. It's because (as stated before), the elderly aren't the wisest people around anymore. Many of them are afraid of the new technologies (like my grandmother. I had to force her to use a cell phone, in order to be in touch, when needy, when grandpa died. I've spent three days nagging and teaching her how to use it, while she refused to learn) and sometimes they try to show themselves more helpless than they are. Of course that is just one part of the group.

I have been taught to have some kind of respect towards the elderly, like letting them sit down in public transport, helping them with heavy bags etc. But I'm not sure if that is what we could call "respect".

But I've learned to respect a lot of people who deserved it, no matter if young or old. When you earn my respect, you have it. But one doesn't get it automatically, just because he/she is old...

I remember trying to teach my granny decimal currency back in the 70s. What a nightmare. She still insisted on asking shop assistants "What's that in real money" for decades.
On the other hand she did raise three kids through the Depression and survived the Blitz. It's all a question of what criteria you award points for respect on.

Age does get you respect in many parts of Africa, particularly the rural areas. There the elders are still the source of knowledge, but this is changing. White hair will get you automatic respect. The elders are those with the skills in local politics, village life and the bush, both for hunting and simple survival. Being Africa, most people over 60 have seen some form of conflict in their lifetime, and come through it. The wiser younger folks listen to these people, because they DID live through it, where many failed to survive.

I am polite to people older than me, as I am polite to people younger than me. Treat me well, you will get the same treatment in return. Be an ass-hat, game on.

I think today the young confuse "respect" and "fear". You see these gangs mooching around, constantly on the lookout for being "disrespected", to pick a fight.

I'm still an adolescent, so I don't have the knowledge thing down yet. The internet probably does house more information than the elderly family friend who is a professor at the dental school in California. But when I was in the hospital in seventh grade, it was much nicer to call her up and listen to her care, concern, and humanity as she told me what she thought of the results of the blood tests, than to look it up on the intertubes. And when I was in San Francisco a few weeks ago, I thoroughly enjoyed slowly helping her set up the new computer, and teaching her to use iTunes, and make a photo gallery on the web, an bookmark something in Firefox... Yes, I could tell her to just call customer support (see my post in snark), but I enjoy helping, and it's more than enough a reward to hear her tell my father how glad she is I haven't become "like other teenagers," (i.e. damn kids these days, etc.).

I respect the elderly as much as I do any other human being. I don't try to be extra polite or to "dumb things down for the old folk." I would find it disrespectful if somebody did that to me. If my friend in California needs something simplified, she'll ask. Hell, if my senile grandmother in Poland needs something, she'll ask. I realize that sometimes the elderly may need special help or consideration, and I try to be as helpful and considerate to them as to any other person. But the most respectful thing I can do, I think, is to treat every human being I know as a human being.

I agree that respect is a two way street. Give and get.

but for so much of human history all we had were our evolving brains as repositories for our "history"- so some natural respect for the wisdom of the aged is and should be expected- they have after all
been there and done that--

I always think about the "song lines" of aboriginal Australia when I think about elders as knowledge repositiories- these "walk abouts" aren't just a wanderlust thing- they are living and participating in their hisotry- each place visited each story told or sung is something that is saved and given to the young

BTW- has anyone seen the 8-9-07 issue of the Journal of Nature? A very interesting article about how H.hablis and H.erectus might have coexisted. That is why I love science so much- it is always growing/learing/changing/evolving--not static at all!

I too, show respect to older people automatically, because that's how I was raised. But respect doesn't mean swallowing whatever they say as the absolute peak of wisdom. I may take it into consideration, but I don't take anyone's word for what's best for me no matter what they look like.

I also think that there remains a bit of confusion between wisdom and knowledge. Just because my 82 year old mother doesn't want a computer doesn't mean she is stupid. As far as I can tell, she's wise enough to know she won't bother with it, so why should she have one? She's a famous phone talker from way back. She knows herself. That, to me, is a form of wisdom.

very true that wisdom and knowledge are different things.

This is a difficult topic because so many things have changed in the past 100 years. Survival nowadays is a very different ordeal and what was mainstream thought then today may be frowned upon.

My thoughts are on two aspects, one, to me respect should be given to any human being regardless of age, in fact I don't believe so much in earning respect but in the opposite: what someone has to do to earn my disrespect.

The other thought is regarding the knowledge/wisdom that the older folks may have. Plain knowledge is relatively easy to acquire nowadays, but the experience is still very, very valuable (check any job posting), and while some of that experience may be obsolete, the human component is always present, and if you listen carefully to the older and filter the noise, you are bound to find very interesting pieces of wisdom.

On a last note, I wanted to mention my paternal grandfather (may he rest in peace) with whom I could hardly be more opposite ideologically but from whom I learned a great deal. To me it is all a matter of learning to listen and avoid judging to get the most of it.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 09, 2007, 06:31:28 PM
This is a difficult topic because so many things have changed in the past 100 years. Survival nowadays is a very different ordeal and what was mainstream thought then today may be frowned upon.

My thoughts are on two aspects, one, to me respect should be given to any human being regardless of age, in fact I don't believe so much in earning respect but in the opposite: what someone has to do to earn my disrespect.

The other thought is regarding the knowledge/wisdom that the older folks may have. Plain knowledge is relatively easy to acquire nowadays, but the experience is still very, very valuable (check any job posting), and while some of that experience may be obsolete, the human component is always present, and if you listen carefully to the older and filter the noise, you are bound to find very interesting pieces of wisdom.

On a last note, I wanted to mention my paternal grandfather (may he rest in peace) with whom I could hardly be more opposite ideologically but from whom I learned a great deal. To me it is all a matter of learning to listen and avoid judging to get the most of it.

Well said.

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on August 09, 2007, 06:31:28 PMMy thoughts are on two aspects, one, to me respect should be given to any human being regardless of age, in fact I don't believe so much in earning respect but in the opposite: what someone has to do to earn my disrespect.

*rumble*

Well, I believe in both, but I start with a default level of respect, and anyone has my basic human respect until they work at losing it.


Actually... I was thinking about what jjj had said about youth in Korea respecting their elders.  Unfortunately, the reverse is not usually true - a fair number of older men in particular take this respect as granted and unconditional, and expect younger people (women especially) to defer to their opinions without question.  The age difference can be relatively small for this to kick in - even a few years in some cases.  Having close friends outside of one's age cohort is quite uncommon, because of this.  This is a negative...  especially with the importance of technology these days.  Older folk now stand to benefit in knowledge from younger generations, as much as younger folk can benefit from their elders' wisdom.

My fiancee' was pleased, although a little surprised at first, to see that one can be friends with just about anyone here...  our friends range from a few years younger than us to decades older, with no difference in social footing.

:) I've also noticed that, and it's something, I think, that keeps us here.

I tend to fall in with Chatty, and for some of the same reasons (I'm not Southern, but I have family that is, and you DO NOT be anything less than polite to any of them unless you want the wrath of the entire family to fall on you.)
There is a basic level of respect I treat every sentient being with, but who they are determines if it moves up from there. If they earn more through their actions, words, thoughts and ideas, so be it. If they do the opposite, it moves down to the level of being civil (which is an facet of respect, IMO).

I would argue, by the way, that experience is not always the reason that our ancestors treated the elderly with respect. I would suggest it had more to do with the bonds they had. They lived in small social groups, so they knew each other, therefore, there were bonds, right?
It may have changed, and I would think the experience argument is a guilt trip.

Jared Diamond, who has fairly extensive experience with Stone Age societies, illustrates the point with the observation that in one particular group, just about anyone could list and show him the (hundreds of) local fruits etc. that were good to eat. When he asked what it was possible to eat, however, they took him to find their oldest member, who had lived through a major tornado event some 70 years before and knew which of the other 'foods' would sustain life, and which would kill you quick.
I think the 'bonds' (very real to us) you talk about, developed as a result of, not instead of, the evolutionary advantage of a genetic pre-disposition to respect the aged. In other words, it's a way of expressing, or a mechanism for achieving, what is at base, as all evolutionary drivers are, a very practical and hard-cold-reality-based imperative.

Your genes don't care for the people you love. They cause you to care for the people you love.

Quote from: Kanaloa the Squidly on August 09, 2007, 07:54:03 PM
I would argue, by the way, that experience is not always the reason that our ancestors treated the elderly with respect. I would suggest it had more to do with the bonds they had. They lived in small social groups, so they knew each other, therefore, there were bonds, right?

I think (if I'm coming at this from a similar angle to Mero) that the argument is that these bonds may have some evolutionary basis, and that there was definite 'cultural evolution' that put/kept the respect in place.   Emotional bonds are important, but in populations living at near-starvation levels for extended periods of time, resource allocation becomes critical.   Incidentally, it occurs to me that 'elder-value' will be strongest in societies with regular long-period cycles of feast and famine (every decade or two), and less so where conditions are always consistently marginal.  In a society with constant abundance, one might expect elders to be supported, but not valued as highly (since few of the breeding generation or younger have strong need of elder-advice, and the next generation of 'elders' has failed to pick up survival tactics during their lifespan); this seems to hold out in the West at the moment.


Oops, parallel posted with Mero...  ;)

Quote from: Agujjim on August 09, 2007, 08:19:41 PMOops, parallel posted with Mero...  ;)

In more ways than one, good sibling!  :D

It makes sense, I suppose. Same way that mother-child bond makes sense.

Respect is an odd word I think. It implies value. What people value differs. In accord with Mero, evolutionary forces would tend to value anything which promoted staying alive long enough to procreate, and procreate well and often.

I prefer dignity. Too many of our elderly live without dignity. It niggles away in my mind every day. I don't believe they need to be respected to be allowed dignity.

It is true information can be retrieved from a multitude of sources other than elderly folks brains these days. But sometimes I think with a rye smile of life after global disaster (choose as you will which type); I am eternally grateful to the person who taught me to weave as I would have a tradeable skill ;)

Do you really believe that Internet Info replaces/ obsoletes the need to transfer wisdom to children and young people from elders?
I don't think so, because, Internet Info is:
1) questionable
2) not offering conclusive answers
3) often offers biased advice
4) lacks guidance
5) lacks proof

I think you're right jjj.  the Internet is just like every other source of information, you need to apply your critical factors to the information to sift out the worthwhile stuff.

Two examples:

If I go into a bookshop I can find all sort of books telling me about the power of crystals, cosmic "forces", and a whole lot of other stuff.  It is up to me to use my own knowledge and experience to filter out what I should pay attention to.  Sure some true things may seem out there, and you should always be on the look out for it, and don't necessarily dismiss things out of hand, but as been stated elsewhere extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Just because someone you don't know and have never heard of says something is true does not make it so.

My grandfather (who is 96 and going strong) has spent a very significant part of his life in the bush.  He is a landscape artists and is basic tool of trade is his power of observation.  He has a particular love of birds and has closely observed them since he was a boy.  Yet he still insists that juvenile Eastern Rosellas (a type of Australian parrot) are the females because they are predominantly green whereas the adults are brightly coloured.  Now does this mean I do not respect my grandfather?  No of course not.  He has simply made, probably a long time ago an incorrect conclusion and never had reason to change hi mind.  I could try to point it out by referring him to a book, but it would only upset him, so what's the point.  He still knows more about bird habits in the bush than I will ever know.  His knowledge of the bush is amazing, just it is not perfect.

This applies to all sources of information.  Most are not completely correct.  In science, I would argue that there is no perfect knowledge about anything.

So when dealing with other people, respect is not given just because someone knows things.  Anyone IMO is entitled to a certain amount of respect and to be treated politely.  As Chatty put it very well, that is until they do things to lose that respect, and from what I have seen, some really work hard at losing the respect of others around them.  On the other hand many people, probably the overwhelming majority are worthy of greater respect than the "
default". 

Our elders may not know everything, but they do have life experience.  The young generation always says "but everything is new now", and indeed it is.  Just as it has always been.  I am sure the young people at the time of the invention of the bow and arrow reckoned their spear toting elders were fuddy duddies who had nothing to say about hunting that was worth listening to.  You can read Pliny the Elder complaining 2000 years ago about the lack of respect of "young people today".  And no doubt those young people complained about the old fashioned ideas of Pliny and his fellows.

I say enjoy your life, its the only one you've got.  Listen to what other people say, especially those who have greater experience than you.  Not everything may be right, but not everything will be wrong either.

Yes... nicely put!
So, in other words, the wisdom of elders is invaluable for young persons, since Internet Info lacks proper guidance.
Now how to convey this rather simple fact to 'cool' young people without heating/ grilling them?
I think to be effective this has to be instilled at a very tender age in order to amend/ correct flawed cultural trends. Let's give up on the last generation, since drugs and consequences are teaching them a lesson or two...the hard, painful way.

I blame the education system for having failed to deliver a better culture than what we witnessing now, because all evils starts very early. It's only if we fail to curb it that it grows out of proportion/ control.

Quote from: jjj on August 10, 2007, 02:55:49 PM
Do you really believe that Internet Info replaces/ obsoletes the need to transfer wisdom to children and young people from elders?
I don't think so, because, Internet Info is:
1) questionable
2) not offering conclusive answers
3) often offers biased advice
4) lacks guidance
5) lacks proof

I think all of these points can be applied against any source of wisdom, and in particular, #3 is very applicable to advice from elders!  Hopefully it is biased towards seeing younger folks succeed, but it's also interesting that one universal piece of advice from elders, "Respect your elders", is VERY elder-biased!  :D

Aside from intentional bias, life-experience wisdom is inherently biased toward the conditions in which it was formed.  I've been reading much on investing lately, which provides good examples of how 'sound advice' changes over time, and generally only applies to the past, not the future.  If I could ask the top financial wizards of the last 5 generations what the best 20-year investment strategy was, I'd get 5 different answers, and none of them would likely be the best strategy for the next 20 years - actually, I'd expect most to fail completely!

The wisdom of age does have value...  heck, if I could even go back 10 years and talk to my younger self, it would be of tremendous value (much of what I'd say was probably said to me at the time, but perhaps I'd trust my own self.  One always thinks they know best at that age), but it does come at the price of some ideals and ability to think in unwise directions - unwise thinking isn't necessarily 'safe', but it can produce unique and undiscovered nuggets of wisdom among the masses of fool's gold.   

Also, I know that you are not a fan of the 'sheep' mentality, but if all of society was to follow the consensus wisdom of it's elders, we'd have a very uniform society indeed!  If one wants to avoid consensus, how do you chose which elder to listen to?  There are old fools as well as young fools...  they are just less likely to dress like fools! 


All this being said, I think that elder advice has tremendous value in the areas that are constant and relatively unchanging in the human experience... particularly interpersonal relationships.


Oh, and as a member of the 'last generation' (close enough) I resent the bit on 'giving up'.  We are the parents of the next generation, and will have the greatest impact on it.  If you don't get through to us, you'll lose the little ones as well.  I've also seen tremendous wisdom in the adolescent members of this board (13 - 18 year olds), far more than I had at that age.  Again....  foolishness doesn't stop with age, it just wears less makeup.

_{Incidentally, I've always been well aware of consequences, and because I've been aware of consequences, have learned a positive lesson or two from drugs on occasion.} :mrgreen:

Quote from: Agujjim on August 10, 2007, 04:05:28 PM

Oh, and as a member of the 'last generation' (close enough) I resent the bit on 'giving up'.  We are the parents of the next generation, and will have the greatest impact on it.  If you don't get through to us, you'll lose the little ones as well. 

Very insightful, there! 

The last generation will be next generation to grow up and have children. They may be making mistakes that look hopeless to those with more experience, but they are no more so than any of us were.

The older generations come in to help whenever a new generation starts generating another generation. That's the time when the parenting generation is ready to listen to the older folks. They will then take that knowledge and synthesize it through their own experiences and come up with new wisdom, which they will have available to share when their grandchildren need help with the kids.

Funny how it seems to skip a generation, huh? I guess that our parents have to tell us so much as we grow that at a certain point we have to turn them off to acheive our own independence. (It has been said that a person becomes an adult when she or she is consistantly able to disagree with a parent in a civilized fashion.)

Quote..."Respect your elders", is VERY elder-biased!

Well, 'respect the wisdom of elders' is really meant by that. Ultimataly, not elders but the young ones are going to benefit from transfer of wisdom.Alternatively disrespecting acquired wisdom leaves young people vulnerable to acquire it the hard (not recommendable) way.

Quote...examples of how 'sound advice' changes over time, and generally only applies to the past, not the future. 

True, sound advice regarding technical aspects changes over time, but that does not apply to fundamental principles related to quality of life, such as ...how to achieve highest possible, lasting contentment?

Quote...unwise thinking isn't necessarily 'safe', but it can produce unique and undiscovered nuggets of wisdom among the masses of fool's gold. I've always been well aware of consequences, and because I've been aware of consequences, have learned a positive lesson or two from drugs on occasion.

Yes, wisdom gained the 'hard way is as invaluable as when it's gained the 'easy way'; i.e. heading advice from elders or learning lessons from mistakes of others. I prefer and recommend the latter.

Quote...if all of society was to follow the consensus wisdom of it's elders, we'd have a very uniform society indeed!

Uniform...o.k., but rather in the sense of that we then all would possess more wisdom and so, needless suffering (due to gaining wisdom the hard way) would be minimized.

QuoteI resent the bit on 'giving up'.

That's nice to know, for it proves that you already (one way or the other) came to realize the benefits of insight for future generations, provided I interpreted your intentions correctly.

Quote from: jjj on August 10, 2007, 03:51:50 PM
So, in other words, the wisdom of elders is invaluable for young persons, since Internet Info lacks proper guidance.
Now how to convey this rather simple fact to 'cool' young people without heating/ grilling them?

Just a suggestion from perhaps a less than cool young person, avoid the "Smarter-then-thou" attitude. I have seen very little of that here, but when older people do it to me, it irritates me to no end. I've also heard my friends and peers complain about it, too.

Quote from: jjj on August 10, 2007, 03:51:50 PM
I think to be effective this has to be instilled at a very tender age in order to amend/ correct flawed cultural trends. Let's give up on the last generation, since drugs and consequences are teaching them a lesson or two...the hard, painful way.

Hey! Not all of us are stupid. Some of us are capable of predicting the consequences of our actions. And as Auggie pointed out, you havbe to work with us to 'save' the next generation, unless you want to take our children from us.
I really think that a lot of our problems stem from lack or excess of parental control. For example, one of my stoner friends has very little parental guidance. Her mother turns a blind eye to much of what she does (so far, only weed and alcohol) as did her previous guardian.
Another friend, as soon as she left home, started sleeping around, etc. Got kicked out of college for it.

The parents that I have seen with the best behaved children are the ones who are more moderate. My parents will tell me why I can't do something, after I show that I'm going to do what they asked. My friend's parents guide him, and there are certain things he has to do, but they let him do as he likes within limits.
I'm not laying all the blame on parents who use, "Because I said so!" but I would suggest it's a definite factor, and most kids I know have parents that fall into one category or the other.

Quote from: jjj on August 10, 2007, 03:51:50 PM
I blame the education system for having failed to deliver a better culture than what we witnessing now, because all evils starts very early. It's only if we fail to curb it that it grows out of proportion/ control.

True, but I think it's the parents' job to guide their children away from that. The education system should not have to parent the children. Parents need to deliver the moral culture and the respect for others, and they can do it far better then any teacher (who only has one year) can ever do.

QuoteThe parents that I have seen with the best behaved children are the ones who are more moderate.

Good point! How about we learn/  model from parents, who do it right? The problem is also that now parents have limited powers to make their children obey their advice/ orders, yet, children need to be told what to do.
Thus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if they fail to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

The camp idea make me nauseous. I thin that's a really bad idea, and while I don't have a solution, I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Yes, there's a limit to what parents can make their child do, particularly the older they get, but if you establish your authority early (IE at two or so) there should be fewer issues. I'm eighteen, and I know that legally, I can do what I want, but if my parents say no, then I'm going to listen unless there's a legit reason not to.
With teenagers, I would think that a deprivation of money would be a solution. There's only so much you can do for free and only so often you can mooch.

Quote from: jjj on August 10, 2007, 05:28:40 PM
Uniform...o.k., but rather in the sense of that we then all would possess more wisdom and so, needless suffering (due to gaining wisdom the hard way) would be minimized.

One thing I'm very concerned with is systemic suffering as opposed to individual suffering.  Yes, there are many ways a young person can fall into a life of pain, but many of these ways, and indeed most of the suffering that occurs across entire regions, nations, continents, the globe, is far beyond the scope of the individual who is suffering.  Listening to wisdom may keep an American teen from becoming addicted to heroin, but what can it do for a mother who has seen three of her children die of cholera because no clean water is available (hey - pick a country, there's plenty!)?

It also seems to me that most of the people with the money, power and influence to start making a difference in the 'big picture' suffering are QUITE content with their lives, but don't necessarily care about what is happening, In some cases, the people in power only got to and stay in power by actively promoting violence and poverty (pick a dictator...). 

On a less dramatic scale, it is often the youth that hold the ideals and the passion to actually want to change things...  from my observations and my own experience, in developed nations, with age one becomes increasingly interested in maintaining the status quo to achieve and protect the means to be content.  Contentment may be achieved by the mind, but if one doesn't have the means to give the body food, shelter and necessary medical care, the mind has a pretty tough time achieving contentment!

QuoteGood point! How about we learn/  model from parents, who do it right? The problem is also that now parents have limited powers to make their children obey their advice/ orders, yet, children need to be told what to do.
Thus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if it fails to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

Setting guidelines solves nothing, because guidelines are never enforceable.  If guidelines work, then why do we still have physical abuse (and worse) of children?  The horrible things done to children by abusive parents (and gotten away with, even when cases have been brought to the attention of social services) also serve as evidence that there really is nothing limiting reasonable discipline of children, despite popular perception and anecdotal evidence.   

As Kanaloa points out, there is much more to be gained to teaching (especially older) children why they should or should not behave in certain ways, reaffirming to your child that you believe in their capacity to act rationally, than to simply ORDER them to behave because YOU know BETTER.  There are so many things a teenager will know how to do (esp. wrt technology) that a parent doesn't, that if your authority is based on supposed omniscience, it's on a very fragile string indeed. 

Discipline should be used to demonstrate that negative behaviours have consequences, not strictly that going against parental will brings punishment.  The first will still be relevant when the young person is away from parental authority, the second will just teach them to be sneaky.

QuoteAs Kanaloa points out, there is much more to be gained to teaching (especially older) children why they should or should not behave in certain ways, reaffirming to your child that you believe in their capacity to act rationally, than to simply ORDER them to behave because YOU know BETTER.  There are so many things a teenager will know how to do (esp. wrt technology) that a parent doesn't, that if your authority is based on supposed omniscience, it's on a very fragile string indeed.

Discipline should be used to demonstrate that negative behaviours have consequences, not strictly that going against parental will brings punishment.  The first will still be relevant when the young person is away from parental authority, the second will just teach them to be sneaky.

Yes, these are the very type of guidelines (I meant) which should be introduced... because something has to be done to progress our society towards a better society!

If you'd care to read the paragraph directly above the one you've quoted, you'll see my assertion that I don't believe guidelines would help.  Parental education programs might help, for the parents who want to do best for their children, but aren't sure how; however, the sad reality is that in many cases, people find themselves becoming parents without any desire do be so, and really don't care about their children, and there's no way this situation will be resolved with education. 

So what do we do?  Issue breeding licences, with lifetime sentences for breeding without a licence?  Mandatory sterilization of bad parents? :irony:


Regarding camps to reform difficult children...  we have these already, generally referred to as juvenile detention centres, for youth involved in criminal activity.  If we go beyond simple criminal activity to such horrible behaviour such as disrespect to parents, bad attitude and socially unacceptable dress, I'm afraid we'd have to lock up the entire adolescent population!  Nearly all teenagers, even 'GOOD' ones, go through tremendous emotional turmoil at times, and they do act out on occasion.  I find this line of thinking distasteful.


 
I'm having trouble rationalizing the major disconnect you show between promoting the contentment of the individual (which seems to emphasize emotional stability above societal approval) and promoting the progression of society (including using emotionally crippling methods to bring individuals in line with societal approval). 

I do not personally believe that EITHER objective can be achieved by providing uniform guidance to all individuals, and I strongly believe that heavy enforcement of guidelines would produce the exact opposite... emotional damage to the individual and increased societal chaos due to this damage (i.e. terrorist act, domestic violence, increased substance abuse). 

I think you're right there, Aggie.

The basic problem with most psychological studies is that they tend to assume things about people as groups instead of treating people as individuals. If a person is doing this, he may only see "Teenager" and not "Troubled Teenager", "Troubled teenaged girl", "Troubled and abused teenege girl" or "Troubled and abused pregnant teenaged girl who wants to do better for her unborn child".

Each person is an individual, and we do not react to everything the same way. What worked for Grandpa may not work for me, and if he thinks it ought to, he's ignoring that I'm a different person and it is a different time. I appreciate his advice, but he should not assume his way is the magic key that will transform my life. There are too many variables.

jjj, if I understand your posts correctly, you appear to think that children ought to obey their parents, as a rule.

I strongly disagree.

First, define "children." When does childhood end, in your opinion? Was I no longer a child when I entered puberty? What about when I turned sixteen and could drive? Or will I no longer be a child when I turn eighteen? 21? People change and develop throughout their lives. I agree that very young people need very much guidance, and that sometimes the guidance needs to be instilled forcefully - experience is not a good way to learn not to play in traffic.

But now I'm sixteen years old. According to the government, I'm still a child. Should I be obeying my parents unconditionally and without question? Let's say that I'm no longer a child when I turn eighteen. What "clicks" within me between October 8th and October 9th 2008 that suddenly makes me capable of independence that I ought not have had before?

Putting that line of reasoning aside, I simply disagree in principle to unconditional obedience. (Call me a rebellious teenager, if you will.) I have no psychological studies at my side, but I believe that independence is key to successful development. Relative to most people in my grade at school, I am a relatively subservient son. I always tell my parents where I'm going, what I'm doing, I call if plans change, afterwards I tell them what I've done, how it was, I discuss if they disapprove instead of storming off melodramatically, and if they say "no," I accept their judgment although I may disagree.

I am allowed less freedom than most of my peers and often find myself less deft than them when I have to deal with a new situation.

Because I have not fought for independence, I have less, and when I move away to college in about one year, I will have more learning to do than my peers, and will be at a disadvantage.

Rebellion leads to development, in my opinion, is natural, and is good. I don't think I belong in a camp for that.

Quote from: jjjThus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if they fail to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

There are no "official parental guidelines". Every person is different, which means that every child is different. What I want to say is, every child needs a different approach. That's why, no official guidelines should be there, to tell parents what to do. Especially, if you don't want a "uniform" society (as you've put it), because if you tell the people how to raise their children, isn't that what can bring to a "uniform society"...

"Reforming difficult children in special camps"? I'm sorry that's just too much for me. Why not fill them up with pills to calm them down, lock them up and raise only the "good" kids, nobody will notice. How woudl we determine what a difficult child is? The child that has been stealing candy? Every child does that... Just because a child is not good with authority of its parents (which is the majority of kids, as far as I know), why lock the up in special camps. That won't help. It will just make them hate their parents (for locking them up), hate the government, hate the world...

In my opinion, if the child doesn't listen, let it learn the hard way (unless it gets too dangerous, like suggested above, playing in the traffic). I've been told a hundred times not to come close to the oven, when my mother was baking. I didn't listen. I burned myself a little, and never went close to the oven when my mother was doing something there. A combination of education and personal experience is needes in the education of a child.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on August 10, 2007, 08:29:01 PM
In my opinion, if the child doesn't listen, let it learn the hard way (unless it gets too dangerous, like suggested above, playing in the traffic). I've been told a hundred times not to come close to the oven, when my mother was baking. I didn't listen. I burned myself a little, and never went close to the oven when my mother was doing something there. A combination of education and personal experience is needes in the education of a child.

Heh, one of my opinions on child discipline is that the one time that appropriate physical punishment is to be used is when the consequences of misbehaving are physical.  A slapped hand beats a burn from touching a hot stove, and a smacked bottom is better than being run over by a car.  Incidentally, I don't think I was ever given more than three quick smacks on the bottom from my mom (when very little, and the shock hurt more than the pain), and my dad NEVER actually hit me...  a raised hand was enough!

I don't support physical punishment for 'annoying' behaviour, or simple disobedience. 

Quote from: AggieHeh, one of my opinions on child discipline is that the one time that appropriate physical punishment is to be used is when the consequences of misbehaving are physical.  A slapped hand beats a burn from touching a hot stove, and a smacked bottom is better than being run over by a car.  Incidentally, I don't think I was ever given more than three quick smacks on the bottom from my mom (when very little, and the shock hurt more than the pain), and my dad NEVER actually hit me...  a raised hand was enough!

I don't support physical punishment for 'annoying' behaviour, or simple disobedience.

Physical punishment is good on some occasions. I've been beaten like an animal when I was a child (a little exagerating, and my mother says that she hasn't been beating me enough anyway...), but that never kept me away from the hot stove... It was just too appealing... :)

I think a good smacking is necessary from time to time. I don't think a good beating should be considered as bad parenting (as it is by many people...).

When I was raising my own kids, apart from early on disatrous consequences for biting people (bottom swatting and displayed outrage), and absolute refusal for any attempt to play off one parent against the other (we talk), we pretty much never forbade anything. There were two notable exceptions, one when my eldest (and his friends) rented a snuff video, I said "Absolutely not!' and they unprotestingly took it nback (and didn't get their money back. They didn't complain...
Another time my youngest and his girlfriend bought expensive tickets for a rap-concert. When I heard about it, (the Rappers were well known for violence at there concerts and it was open seating [another recipe for violence]) I again forbade it, and explained why. They, too, uncomplainingly didn't go (they did sell the tickets).
My point is that, because I didn't forbid much (I did offer advice on probable consequences a few times, and let them make their own decisions), when I did, they took it as "Oh! Tthis must be real, not just old fart complaining stuff..."

There is so much in life that can only be learnt through direct personal experience. Many things I was told "for my own good" when young I simply didn't believe or didn't have the experience to actually take on board the issues. Guidelines have to make sense and they can't if there's not enough understanding to back them up. Like Kiyo's example, every child has to learn what hot actually is and they are only going to find out by experiencing hot.

I'm still learning from experience and I expect to go on doing so. I'll listen to what other people say, but then I'll make my own mind up and I may use a variety of ways of achieving that. This was as true of me as a child as it is today. I don't think young people and children are any different to adults in this respect.

QuoteEach person is an individual, and we do not react to everything the same way. What worked for Grandpa may not work for me.

Every individual inherited divers 'true needs' and thus, I agree to that context, yet that doesn't mean the pattern of personal development is not transferable.

Quote...you appear to think that children ought to obey their parents, as a rule. I strongly disagree.

Yes, young children should indeed obey the advice of their parents, for it is the duty of parents to guide and protect their kids. Thus, I strongly disagree to the contrary alternatives.

Quote
People change and develop throughout their lives.

Yes, they do for as long as they still are unable to come to terms with their legacy. I had that problem, too! Yet, once they discovered, developed and fulfill their true needs things turn amazingly stable.

QuoteI simply disagree in principle to unconditional obedience.

Me too! Ideally, every parental advice should be accompanied with detailed explanations, yet in most situations there's neither time nor opportunity for both for it. Young people simply lack vital insight to understand why their parents chose to guide them in this way. With increasing age teenagers learn to trust/ distrust parental advice. It's a horrible time for both!!  The only alternative for rebellious teenagers  is to  earn this insight the hard way, by suffering negative consequences of their illogical actions. End of problem!

QuoteI believe that independence is key to successful development.

Independence under supervision/ guidance (i.e. some elder helping you to verify your reasoning) helps you to achieve far more; easier!  That's why I enjoyed supervision of 'big gun OPA' (grandpa) when I was young. I told him my plan and he only objected when my reasoning went 'bananas'... That way I learned to help myself.

QuoteThere are no "official parental guidelines". 

Well, call it a 'new concept, designed to improve flaws in child upbringing. The very problems indicate that something needs to be done to remedy them or we just continue suffering the same problems over and over.

QuoteA combination of education and personal experience is needs in the education of a child.

See... that's a  'new guidelines' or 'concept' I'm on about! Indeed personal development is a mix of acquiring insight the easy (guided) or hard (self-taught) way. It's unwise to settle for less.

i accept your principle: young children ought to obey their parents because parents can correctly guide those children.

Perhaps the issues I raised in my previous post would be resolved if you would answer these two questions for me:

1. When is a person no longer a "young child?"

2. Are you not assuming that, if the parents are to be obeyed because they are right, they actually have to always be right?

Quote from: jjj on August 10, 2007, 05:52:14 PM

QuoteThe parents that I have seen with the best behaved children are the ones who are more moderate.

Good point! How about we learn/  model from parents, who do it right? The problem is also that now parents have limited powers to make their children obey their advice/ orders, yet, children need to be told what to do.
Thus, the only way to solve this dilemma would be establishing official parental guidelines and if they fail to work, the government should take over the responsibility, by reforming these difficult children in special camps (as seen on TV).

The mention of "special camps" sends shivers up many a spine , if not operated infallibly children could be worse off . I imagine legendary type "boys towns" do exist but are likely few and far between .

I don't know of any offhand , i imagine the most successful would have  complete family involvement ( can't say why , just sounds right) .

I don't know all the reasons kids turn out the way they do , so many factors to consider , I think to children... it is best to be their guardian provider , educator , nurturing and loving...when they get to their teens... be their best friend .

Quote1. When is a person no longer a "young child?"

Since growing up and personal development is a continues process, there are no clear cuts/ barriers. With increasing child's age and maturity both parties (child & parents) have to adjust their accordingly. The object is to instill practice in reasoning.

Quote2. Are you not assuming that, if the parents are to be obeyed because they are right, they actually have to always be right?

Not necessarily. Some parents parents are to young or inexperienced to offer proper guidance to their offspring and teenager are going to notice it. Even wise parents aren't infallible, yet desperately trying to do their best to advice and protect their kids.

QuoteThe mention of "special camps" sends shivers up many a spine...

Yes, I know what you mean, but  no... I didn't have concentration camps in mind?   :o
Only this week I saw (here in Australia) a documentary of such a camp in USA, where difficult youngsters are rehabilitated. Both, the kids and parents were very happy with the outcome. It a farm, where the kids learn to interact and carry out responsible chores. The one's failing to obey are send to a stone circle, where they have to stay isolated for some time etc. After some time they meet their parents and speak out etc. Quite an interesting, commendable concept.

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 12:28:36 PM
Yes, I know what you mean, but  no... I didn't have concentration camps in mind?   :o

Is that a little Freudian slip there, the question mark I mean?

The tone of your discussion disturbs me.  It just would not surprise me if you started touting Lebensborn and Eugenics.  I wouldn't let the government walk my dog and I sure don't think they should be involved with children at any level.

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 12:28:36 PM

Quote1. When is a person no longer a "young child?"

Since growing up and personal development is a continues process, there are no clear cuts/ barriers. With increasing child's age and maturity both parties (child & parents) have to adjust their accordingly. The object is to instill practice in reasoning.

Quote2. Are you not assuming that, if the parents are to be obeyed because they are right, they actually have to always be right?

Not necessarily. Some parents parents are to young or inexperienced to offer proper guidance to their offspring and teenager are going to notice it. Even wise parents aren't infallible, yet desperately trying to do their best to advice and protect their kids.

Okay. Given that, wouldn't you agree that sometimes kids can be correct in disobeying their parents, because, while still technically kids, they have already developed to the extent that they can accurately assess that their parents may be wrong about something, and at such a time the best thing would be to disobey?

Quote from: Alpaca on August 11, 2007, 02:24:45 PM

Quote... sometimes kids can be correct in disobeying their parents, because, while still technically kids, they have already developed to the extent that they can accurately assess that their parents may be wrong about something, and at such a time the best thing would be to disobey?

OI ! In my family self preservation made disobedience mandatory ( ma wasn't bright , was never much light up there *sigh* , a wonder we all made it through , and thank God for antibiotics !

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 12:28:36 PM
Only this week I saw (here in Australia) a documentary of such a camp in USA, where difficult youngsters are rehabilitated. Both, the kids and parents were very happy with the outcome. It a farm, where the kids learn to interact and carry out responsible chores. The one's failing to obey are send to a stone circle, where they have to stay isolated for some time etc. After some time they meet their parents and speak out etc. Quite an interesting, commendable concept.

This fills me with horror. Isolation is used as: punishments in prisons; a method of breaking people down; torture; etc. Isolation of young people/children is known to cause psychological damage. Isolation of babies and toddlers can cause a total lack of development of language. Isolation in adulthood is one of the most feared of social situations, and with good reason.

Decent family therapy would enable chidlren to speak out without this abusive regime. Abuse can never be justified.

The parents may well be happy. Perhaps they get back brainwashed kids who are easier to control. Perhaps the kids are so damaged they will say they are happy with anything. No doubt with nifty presentation of statistics this "experiment" can be "justified". I still call it abuse.

I am sorry, jjj, I am finding your views increasingly worrying. Please don't take that as rejection. Here we try to look at our own attitudes and ideas and discuss them. If we find we have opinions that differ we like to explore why. So in this case I would want to know why your view is to apply an abusive regime (which seems to be a concensus view so far as the camps you favour).

Quote from: MentalBlock996 on August 11, 2007, 02:19:26 PM

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 12:28:36 PM
Yes, I know what you mean, but  no... I didn't have concentration camps in mind?   :o

Is that a little Freudian slip there, the question mark I mean?

Don't get me started on Freud, MB  ;D ;D ;D

I recall such a camp here in Florida. It's actually part of a series of "Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranches." Last time it was in the news was because a kid was beaten to death by the staff there.

Quote

QuoteThe mention of "special camps" sends shivers up many a spine...

Yes, I know what you mean, but  no... I didn't have concentration camps in mind?   :o
Only this week I saw (here in Australia) a documentary of such a camp in USA, where difficult youngsters are rehabilitated. Both, the kids and parents were very happy with the outcome. It a farm, where the kids learn to interact and carry out responsible chores. The one's failing to obey are send to a stone circle, where they have to stay isolated for some time etc. After some time they meet their parents and speak out etc. Quite an interesting, commendable concept.

Was it a Dr. Phil Mcgraw program by any chance ? I love his show and i imagine he would be affiliated with some sort of youth / difficult children program . I am interested in seeing it .


fixed the quote box for you - Aggie

AFAIK the only programs that have proven real success with 'troubled children' tend to be quite labor intensive (and I am talking staff here) expensive and hard to man. It basically requires total commitment (as parents should) from the staff, small numbers and a very specific profile (loving, caring, committed to the children) on those taking care of the children.

A camp suggest that such nuanced environment can be successfully applied for large number of 'inmates' which has proven wrong every time. In fact when the state is forced to take custody of children the movement has moved toward foster parents rather than camps because even a half broken family is better than a camp any day.

I admit that the idea of parenting licensing sounds attractive in principle but so far there seems to be no way to implement something like that without having many negative overtones in many aspects.

Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on August 11, 2007, 03:03:07 PM
Don't get me started on Freud, MB  ;D ;D ;D

Don't get me wrong, I think Freud was a loon.  I just wanted to differentiate from just a plain "slip" which could be women's undergarments.  :mrgreen:

This discussion of "Respect for Elders", "Family Values" and "Camps" to drive the square pegs into the round holes is freakin' me out.  My Dad is a drunk, my Mom is a nut, my brother is retarded.  Where do I fit in the Galton Society?  "To the Camp MB!"

I'm designed by my genes, but I am not defined by them.

Amen!

QuoteIs that a little Freudian slip there, the question mark I mean?

No, as mentioned, I'm totally illiterate about works of philosophers from the past. I merely rely on personally gained insight.

Quote...while still technically kids, they have already developed to the

Quoteextent that they can accurately assess that their parents may be wrong about something, and at such a time the best thing would be to disobey?

That's very much it!

QuoteThis fills me with horror. Isolation is used as: punishments in prisons; a method of breaking people down; torture; etc. Isolation of young people/children is known to cause psychological damage.

I think you paint yourself a 'too bleak pic' of psychological means to correct gone wrong behavior. Nothing of the sorts... Short time isolations (like an occasional smack) offers wrong doers merely the chance to analyze and readjust themselves to the demands.

QuoteI recall such a camp here in Florida. It's actually part of a series of "Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranches.

No, that's no it, either... try again! :)

QuoteWas it a Dr. Phil Mcgraw program by any chance ? I love his show...

That's more like it. That's definitely the way to go, because something has to be done to salvage the families peace of these uncontrollable rascals. It costs them a fortune, but it's all worth it.

I think maybe why there's such a low opinion of any type of 'child correctional camps' is that while there's nothing wrong with the theory, properly used, it is almost impossible to make it work in real life.   Very similar to communism in that respect - it's a nice theory, but doesn't work for humans!

Institutions nearly always run into institutional problems, and ones dealing with children are particularly prone to abuses in the system. 

In addition to this, if there is a disconnect between children and their parents, it's not usually only the children that need guidance.  If one was to get any success in a 'camp', I strongly suspect it could only happen by working with both the parents and the children at the same time, and with lots of hands-on work from a social worker or family councilor. 

I think one of the reasons "camps" would be impossible to implement is the fact that all people are different. There is no "correct child." Children would have to be, if you will, re-educated in ways that would apply precisely to their individual circumstances. That means parents would have to participate, too, as Aggie and others have mentioned. In the end, it would be parents and kids as a unit, anyway. The en masse format of a camp wouldn't work, I think.

Well... it was tried in Canada for the benefit of First Nations children....
Here's a basic article:
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0011547

but I strongly recommend looking through the Google results for 'native residential schools':
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=native+residential+schools&btnG=Search&meta=


Entire generations were very heavily abused, physically, emotionally, and sexually.

QuoteIn 1909, Dr. Peter Bryce, general medical superintendent for the Department of Indian Affairs reported to the department that between 1894 and 1908 mortality rates at residential schools in Western Canada ranged from 35% to 60% over five years (that is, five years after entry, 35% to 60% of students had died). These statistics did not become public until 1922, when Bryce, who was no longer working for the government, published The Story of a National Crime: Being a Record of the Health Conditions of the Indians of Canada from 1904 to 1921. In particular, he alleged that the high mortality rates were frequently deliberate, with healthy children being exposed to children with tuberculosis.

:'(

Perhaps an afternoon counseling session for the family unit would work?

I reckon we should leave behavioral problems to psychologists, psychiatrists and or ...just allow the alternative to terrorize society (...since there's no willingness to do something about it).
That's of course no solution, but so be it! Usually, when things reach greater urgency, it kick-starts awareness and actions. So, we have just to wait for it to get worse...
I personally don't handle my problems that way, for I solve them immediately. That's why I virtually ran out of problems... and am almost glad to get a new one!  ;D 

I would say that it's not a lack of desire to change, it's an uncertainty of how to do it. If we do it wrong, we screw up a generation of people even worse than they could do on their own. We have to think about it very, very carefully, since the consequences are great.

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 08:17:19 PM
I reckon we should leave behavioral problems to psychologists, psychiatrists and or ...just allow the alternative to terrorize society (...since there's no willingness to do something about it).

Maybe it's just my perception, but I don't feel that society is terrorized by youth (at this time of my life).   

Actually, I feel that misbehaving youth (specifically in the context of gang violence) are a much greater threat to themselves than they are to the rest of society!  It's also my perception that in many cases the gang youth in my area have good family dynamics, but end up where they are due to larger social issues.  I have no evidence for this, though - it's entirely my conjecture.

Maybe it's just my perception, but I don't feel that society is terrorized by youth (at this time of my life).   

Well, for as long its not becoming a real problem or there's no problem we shouldn't worry about, albeit in this TV documentary things were quite problematic, to say the least.
Frankly, I miss such problems like a hole in the head...  ;D

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 07:41:35 PM

QuoteThis fills me with horror. Isolation is used as: punishments in prisons; a method of breaking people down; torture; etc. Isolation of young people/children is known to cause psychological damage.

I think you paint yourself a 'too bleak pic' of psychological means to correct gone wrong behavior. Nothing of the sorts... Short time isolations (like an occasional smack) offers wrong doers merely the chance to analyze and readjust themselves to the demands.

There's a substantial difference between a few minutes spent by a child in their own bedroom in their own home for naughtiness or disobedience than in isolation in a stone circle in a correctional camp for failing. Failure is one of the most dispirting things; I don't believe punishment is even relevant or should be.

There are many kinds of wrong doing. They don't all warrant the same treatment. Encouragement and the right kind of attention tends to work better than repression and punishment in my experience.

Parenting classes have begun to appear to be effective over here.

QuoteFailure is one of the most dispiriting things; I don't believe punishment is even relevant or should be.

The laws of logic (or nature) punishes us for illogical actions and that's why I still believe nature is the best teacher. All we need to learn is to logically correct interpret its laws to benefit from nature's wisdom.

I agree, what works best is usually the logically more correct method/ solution to the problem. If kissing them 3 times a day works even better, I would prefer that! That's what progress is all about!

Quote from: jjj on August 11, 2007, 11:36:18 PM
All we need to learn is to logically correct interpret its laws to benefit from nature's wisdom.

I'm going off at a slight tangent here. Nature includes many organisms which kill homo sapiens. Presumably nature's wisdom has this method of keeping populations and eco-systems in balance. Are we wrong then to prolong human life by using medicines?

Logic consists of pos & neg polarities. Nature offers you the choice. Feel free to pick the ones you prefer!
Another example: Nature offers us spiky, sharp, explosives objects, such as needles, knives, TNT etc. I's up to you to use them wisely to your benefit.

From what I understand you continually chose the TNT, jjj.  Why is that?

Nahh... only some 45 years ago in the army, where I was a munition ward.

You know from what I speak, do you not?

jjj, one of your arguments for the use of isolation as punishment is that nature punishes.

First, does nature necessarily use isolation as punishment?

Second, if nature already punishes, why should we?

QuoteYou know from what I speak, do you not?

Not quite... I thought it was just on the 'punny site'... Tell me more.
=========

QuoteFirst, does nature necessarily use isolation as punishment?

I suppose illogical actions do indeed isolate us somewhat from reality and positive achievements. It makes us ask what went wrong?

QuoteSecond, if nature already punishes, why should we?

In the case of a gross juvenile violation some temporary, strong measures are need to clearly show the consequences of illogical actions, because the juvenile does not realize the negative effect of his/ her illogical actions.
In other words, the rules have been previously explained and agreed upon and thus, infringements of the same is to punished. That's how our justice systems functions. You could also say: Well, we shouldn't punish the murderer, because he/ she already shows remorse and suffers guilt, shame and depression.
Thus, offering young people a taste of illogical action's consequences early on might in fact help them to avoid worse.
I gave it a shot, but (as  mentioned) it's rather the job of  psychologists/  psychiatrists to sort out these kind of juvenile behavior problems.

Quote from: Agujjim on August 09, 2007, 07:03:09 PM

*rumble*

Well, I believe in both, but I start with a default level of respect, and anyone has my basic human respect until they work at losing it.


Actually... I was thinking about what jjj had said about youth in Korea respecting their elders.  Unfortunately, the reverse is not usually true - a fair number of older men in particular take this respect as granted and unconditional, and expect younger people (women especially) to defer to their opinions without question.  The age difference can be relatively small for this to kick in - even a few years in some cases.  Having close friends outside of one's age cohort is quite uncommon, because of this.  This is a negative...  especially with the importance of technology these days.  Older folk now stand to benefit in knowledge from younger generations, as much as younger folk can benefit from their elders' wisdom.....

This is the case with old world Chinese as well . We HAD to show all manner of difference and respect to elders and that was all there was to it .Mother was a hypocrite however and dissed whoever she felt like , behind their backs.

I remember for a number of years a distant relation who was alcoholic ( eventually died alone in squalor )  No one even attempted to help him or say a word to him about it because he was older .

After losing or quiting yet another job ( he was a talented chef ) , he would be on our doorstep and drunk in a hurry .

We kids were aged 1 to 11 when this nonsense started . One of our family would have to give up their bed to him . And so often he would be in the same room as my  5yr.old sister and 7 yr. old brother snoring to wake the dead with the radio blasting away .

What the fornicate was in my parents heads i could not fathom , we learned not to talk about things , we learned our mother was a fool ( harsh , pitiful and I am ashamed of myself  .)
We all had a difficult time in our childhoods , being Oriental with Vietnam raging and two other wars still fresh in peoples minds made most days torture .
Often the thought of home and maybe television when dad could afford one was the highlight of many a day . Otherwise it was out with the neighbourhood kids we considered friends , some these friends kept up the racist crap until their late teens .


I'm sorry , I forgot what I was talking about......yes.. respect , I don't believe it should be automatically given ... kindness , charity , civility.. yes  , I'm all for that .

Quote from: jjj on August 12, 2007, 04:55:35 AM

QuoteFirst, does nature necessarily use isolation as punishment?

I suppose illogical actions do indeed isolate us somewhat from reality and positive achievements. It makes us ask what went wrong?

Some animals have the top male and when he loses a fight to the next in line, the top male wanders off alone to end his days. What went wrong? He got old. Not much currency in him suffering isolation in order to ask what went wrong though????? He'd be better off in a nice home for ancient top deposed males surely? I don't quite get this nature stuff. Maybe I keep missing the point?

In short... there are basically two types of oldies:

1) the wise oldies... and

2) the old oldies!

QuoteSome animals have the top male and when he loses a fight to the next in line, the top male wanders off alone to end his days.

True, animals have their own evolution path etc. and that's why we ...cook wonderful meals out of them!   ;D

I guess there's a problem in England. We tend to treat our animals better than our ill and elderly humans. Like helping them out of their terminal pain, rather than leaving them to learn the lessons of agonising isolation. Perhaps we need to publish a few new cookery books.

"Another Modest Proposal?"

If we ever aim to create a better society, re-establishing the respect towards our elders will certainly rank supreme on the priority list...because it's one of the most fundamental rules of a progressive society.
I don't think I underestimate our cultural status by labeling it 'regressive', due to high crime-, drug-, suicide-, divorce- rates etc.
Also it appears that our increasing materialistic ambitions have a dehumanizing effect on society. Many people mishandle wealth. Greed and envy seems to get the better of them..

Sure, if society is to be better, elders ought to be respected. But so ought younger people. And so ought people the same age. So ought all human beings, I think. In order to create a better society, we need to establish a general level of mutual respect throughout all humankind.

Well, I just heard on the radio that millionaires have to be messed up psychologically to become millionaires ;)

Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on August 12, 2007, 03:34:41 PM
Well, I just heard on the radio that millionaires have to be messed up psychologically to become millionaires ;)

Perhaps. Or perhaps the system that facilitates them becoming millionaires is messed up.

It makes perfect sense. In fact I am sure that the same kind of study would find that politicians are psychologically messed up too. Although, now that I think about it most politicians are millionaires...
:mrgreen:

Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on August 12, 2007, 03:34:41 PM
Well, I just heard on the radio that millionaires have to be messed up psychologically to become millionaires ;)

Why am I not a millionaire then?  :mrgreen:

No one expecting respect from me is going to get it.  Demanding it for any reason takes my respect away.  I don't go around demanding respect from any one as it goes against Toadfish humble nature.  That will be the case for me no matter how old I get.

Quote from: jjj on August 12, 2007, 03:08:27 PM
If we ever aim to create a better society, re-establishing the respect towards our elders will certainly rank supreme on the priority list...because it's one of the most fundamental rules of a progressive society.

Supreme?

There are a couple of problems I am having with this. The first one is that here in the Toadfish Monastery we all have agreed to try to respect one another in a mutual fashion. Anyone able to at least try to do this consistantly is welcome here.

Mutual respect means that I will not hold your opinion above or below  my own. I will not expect you to bow to me nor have you ask me to bow to you. We need not agree on everything, but we can talk together best as equals. This is fundamental in this forum. Please keep this in mind.

The other thing that bugs me is that you have mentioned your age jjj, and now you seem to be demanding respect for elders. It appears that you are demanding respect for yourself. I do not wish to upset you, but that attitude is not what I would call humble.

Would you care to address this?

QuoteSure, if society is to be better, elders ought to be respected. But so ought younger people. And so ought people the same age. So ought all human beings, I think. In order to create a better society, we need to establish a general level of mutual respect throughout all humankind.

Yes... that's the way and the only way!

QuoteWell, I just heard on the radio that millionaires have to be messed up psychologically to become millionaires.

Seems to be a good radio station... telling the truth for a change!

Back to work...
I wrote :

QuoteIf we ever aim to create a better society, re-establishing the respect towards our elders will certainly rank supreme on the priority list...because it's one of the most fundamental rules of a progressive society.

...and received the following objection:

QuoteThe other thing that bugs me is that you have mentioned your age jjj, and now you seem to be demanding respect for elders. It appears that you are demanding respect for yourself. I do not wish to upset you, but that attitude is not what I would call humble.

You are right, taken in this context it can easily be understood this way. Yet, the truth is that I didn't think of it this way. All I really tried to point out is that the philosophical insight of elders is of paramount importance to young people, because the elders are the ones having had a chance to acquire wisdom. Without their help young people rely on acquiring the same merely the 'hard way'. In other words, the transfer of insight from elders to young people considerably accelerates human evolution!
That's why it's so vital. Hence, it has really nothing to do with my age and personal demands for respect. But I thank you for highlighting a possible connection. I'm new here and so, I more than welcome these sorts of queries. It helps us to get to know each other. So, dear brothers please rest assured that all my intentions are purely benevolent and don't hesitate to demand clarification if my messages get 'fluffy', for my communication skills still require lots of amendments... to get along with you all! Last, not least... a big mea culpa for committing any unintentional offense. As you see, I'm prepared to even excuse myself for 'putting my foot under yours', while you step onto my foot!  Is there anything more I can do? It's almost impossible to foresee all potential negatives of once statements/postings, because in that moment I was focused on totally different thoughts, than anything else... damn it!
I appreciate the presence of good will/ intentions, solidarity and the progressive spirit in this forum. The personal problem I still have is my flawed style communication/ tone and I may I supplicate your help in this matter?
I guess this more a cosmetic problem, but since it can be irritating in the long run, I welcome your frank suggestions. Personally I am very happy with the way you all respond. I promise to take advice (no offense) to my best ability and so, improve my communication skills at the same time. In case my contributions become unbearable or for reason beyond my control (such as Alzheimer's gets me), just let me know and I take my tablets... :) or bow out in time gracefully, humbled & crumbled.  How about that?
And since I'm at it, I should also mention that the other problem I had in other fora was that I never got really upset about anything and that tends to infuriate others even more... So, I suggest if my tone offends you in any form, please let me know. I shouldn't be too hard to clarify my position as my intentions are truly all throughout positive. Consequently, any negative speculations one might be able  to conclude/ ponder from that can only be coincidental or fictitious...

Here's some simple factual feedback, given in understanding that you are working here in a language not a native tongue of yours, that you seem to write very eloquently, but that this  itself may hide the lack of idiomatic sensibilities that a native speaker learns without knowing they learn.
When you use terms like 'supreme priority' and 'paramount importance', you may be thinking that this is only emphasis, or even only heavy emphasis. It is actually interpreted by the rest of us as 'the heaviest possible emphasis'.  For example.

Quotethe respect towards our elders will certainly rank supreme on the priority list

would explicitly state that you considered that more important than, say, preventing child abuse, to the degree that you would be prepared to accept child abuse occurring, if by that, you could achieve respect for elders. You can see that your statement might be misinterpreted by those who read it.
"We do not communicate what we write, but what others read in what we write."
In addition, in English, such terms are commonly use by extremist groups, so that the frequent and repeated use of such 'emphasis' by yourself, particularly when combined with some of the proposals you seem to be making, strongly implies that you yourself hold 'extremist views'.
I hope this helps.  :)

And may I add that your ability not to get upset is a very good skill?  :)

That trait alone makes me feel like you really do want to communicate. I admire it very much.



PS: Since we are a monastery of mixed gender, we use the term "sibling" for eachother, as opposed to the more traditional Brothers or Sisters. Hope that helps.

Hi jj !,

I wuz was just wondering ( no offense of course )...What is your definition of humility ?

And also would you mind giving me some examples ?
Oh ...and could I have two or three in the form of anecdotes ?

Thanks , BC

Quote...your statement might be misinterpreted by those who read it.
"We do not communicate what we write, but what others read in what we write." In addition, in English, such terms are commonly use by extremist groups, so that the frequent and repeated use of such 'emphasis' by yourself, particularly when combined with some of the proposals you seem to be making, strongly implies that you yourself hold 'extremist views'.

Thank you for that. Yes, it takes a lifetime to learn the subtle bits of a language. So, please correct me, when my German-English gets off the rails. Now I just juggle with it as good I can.
Yet, I think the even bigger problem is that I'm new to this forum (teething problems). Once we get to know each other a lot of these kinds of problems will dissipate... like an 'extremely nasty' smell.  :)

QuoteThat trait alone makes me feel like you really do want to communicate

Thx ,  for the flowers...
What is your definition of humility?
Origin: ...invented by monks with lots of time and little money on hand. Now let's see... yes, German monks used it too: 'Beschi'... (wrong) 'Bescheidenheit' (right). It's a pretty ordinary word with lots of extraordinary meanings.  Examples:
In Rom: "He was filled with humility at the sight of the Pope" 
In Calcutta: I heard Mother Theresa suffered from/ enjoyed humility...
As cocktail: Humility is God's Wisdom and Love in perfect balance as Compassion.
In philosophical fora: Humility doesn't allow you to mention your achievements or you'll be branded 'assuming/ arrogant'. I.e. albeit you won't be able to prove/ back up your statements with gained, working philosophical insight, you are allowed to discuss hypothetical  theories, fictions... ( and humility :) ) without humiliating anyone.

Hi jj , After reading that i still don't know what humility is .  ???

I must apologize jj , I just realized that I didn't phrase my querie correctly , :-[ since I am  familiar with your posting style I should know better , I think I may have " booby trapped "you accidentally .

Anyway, allow me to try it again ( a shame I don't know German enough to use those unique German words that can convey precisely the content of a sentence or an entire paragraph , it would be useful here ).

!. How does your German dictionary define humility ?

2. Do you agree ?

3. If no , why not?

4. When is pride a good thing? and when is it not ?

5.Is modesty the same as humility ?

6 Do you think it better to be modest than anything else ? Why or why not ?

7.  Could you give me a negative example of prideful use and a positive  example ?

8. Does prideful boasting offend you in any way ? Why or why not?

9 Is boasting the same as pride ?

Please take your time , by the way we have extra smileys ,when you click the (more) at the top right just above the posting  box . They may be of good use to you , regards BC.

 How does your German dictionary define humility ?
A:  Same as English ones... All depends how and when it's applied.
2. Do you agree ?  A: n/a

3. If no , why not? A: n/a

4. When is pride a good thing? and when is it not ?
A: When it's founded on substance it's a good thing. For envious people it's poison!

5.Is modesty the same as humility ? A: All depends how and when it's applied.

6 Do you think it better to be modest than anything else ? Why or why not ?
A: Modesty in wanting to achieve less than contentment, e.g., is bad!

7.  Could you give me a negative example of prideful use and a positive example ?
A: When it's unfounded! // When it's founded on substance!
8) Does prideful boasting offend you in any way ? Why or why not?
It's unfounded or meaningless. If it's backed up it doesn't offend me; it rather encourages me (...see Liberace, the super-arrogant show off!)
9 Is boasting the same as pride ?
Unsubstantiated boasting stinks! // Substantiated pride is warranted!

Sorry jjj , I need some more elaboration on #1 and #4 to #9 , you see I have forgotten the dictionary definition and I don't want to look it up . I have a small measure of confidence you know where I am going with this and trust you are not offended.

These questions are intended to clarify for the members and guests (and me)your take on this , for me it is a deadly sin , and I avoid it as much as I am capable .
However i don't really care if anyone else displays it , negatively or positively , it is the choice (or non choice ) of the individual .

I do admire those who take pride in striving for personal excellence as long as they do not use others unwillingly to attain such a goal .
However if one flaunts their achievements continually to the same person(s)  repeatedly ,  personal pride becomes....boastful , do you agree?

QuoteI do admire those who take pride in striving for personal excellence as long as they do not use others unwillingly to attain such a goal .

Just thinking... when, where or how I did such a thing? Not that I am aware of. I disclosed my age to introduce myself to members. So, members have a better idea of what life experiences and homework to expect or not to expect... but it was ill-conceived. At the same time I also introduced my achievements, aimed at enriching the forum, not merely to flaunt them unsubstantiatedly.

QuoteHowever if one flaunts their achievements continually to the same person(s)  repeatedly ,  personal pride becomes....boastful , do you agree?

Well, as mentioned, if the reference is applied out of context (other than proof) then personal pride becomes....boastful, I agree.
Again, I'm just thinking... when, where or how I did such a thing? Not that I am aware of. The only way I mention my 'achievements' is when they are needed as evidence to support my statement. Or maybe I should ask: Show me a context where I unnecessarily, boastfully flaunted my achievements. This way I can readjust my 'flaunting filter/ gauge'... and so, avoid upsetting our humble, flaunt sensitive members. With bi-lateral good will we can achieve heavenly harmony... taking care not even mentioning this very achievement.
Post/after thought: Considering the alternatives... what would have happened if I would have not mentioned non-of anything?
A: It would be virtually impossible for me to substantiate my claims. For instance: If I claimed that my certain abilities were inherited (not acquired) than I had no gained personal insight from life experiences to back up my claim. In other words I can honestly say that most of my gained insight I originated and thus, benefit from. That's why I find it so hard to conceal its source. Hence, I apply my achievements as evidence  for my claims... or they won't make sense.

Whoa ! jj , I wrote , " those " and " if one" , not you ! My sincerest apologies for that !

It's my bad conscience, which makes me think back where, how or when I sinned, because it's true I'm lifting my nose often too high,  but then again it's the fault of those 'silicon implants' I received from those big guns...

The worst side step I did in the Rotary Club... where I couldn't handle the humbleness anymore and slipped, while answering questions from members, saying: 'Gentlemen, I find it increasingly hard to remain humble, when one is the greatest!' A mighty got up and proclaimed: 'We are renown not to take such statements easily, but'.... (I stop here). They knew it wasn't meant to insult anyone, but rather relish in the spirit of the moment.
(Proof: I still have the Summary of that posh Lindfield Club (75 members) with that 'memorable quote'... oh horror!)  :-[

Quote from: jjj on August 14, 2007, 01:16:07 PM


The worst side step I did in the Rotary Club... where I couldn't handle the humbleness anymore and slipped, while answering questions from members, saying: 'Gentlemen, I find it increasingly hard to remain humble, when one is the greatest!' A mighty got up and proclaimed: 'We are renown not to take such statements easily, but'.... (I stop here). They knew it wasn't meant to insult anyone, but rather relish in the spirit of the moment.
(Proof: I still have the Summary of that posh Lindfield Club (75 members) with that 'memorable quote'... oh horror!)  :-[

:ROFL:

Communication is a tricky thing, doing it by written language alone is worse, communicating through text in a language that isn't your native tongue is even worse... However you are not alone in that situation, my first language is for example Swedish and there are as I understand many other nationalities among the Siblings.

You asked for constructive help to avoid misunderstandings, The Meromorph has points out some very important keys to what perhaps make people misread your intentions.

My two cents in communication guidance would be:

Read: a lot, read English texts in every field you wish to make your opinion heard. If you want to write about cooking read cookbooks, it you want to write about art read art books, and of cause if you want to write about philosophic matters read such books. 

Tune in: If you are new to a place and you feel that the language is restraining you. Stop and listen (look), take a while and look around let the tone of other peoples conversation inspire you and set the tone in your contributions. This do not mean that you should conform into some sort of clone of somebody else. I simply mean that as a new member of a group (I'm new too) one sometimes has to tune in to the attitude as well the way words are used. this links to my next advice.

Tone down: As someone with a somewhat finite knowledge of a language it is easy to use too strong or too big words. If you feel like writing that something is "of the uttermost importance", tone it down, choose "of great importance" instead  you are still putting emphasis on importance and it is much easier to tune up the emphasis later (if needed) than to tune it down with out undermining ones argumentation.

Use help: Keep a good First language to English lexicon at hand and use it. Not for the spelling or grammar but for synonyms.
I'm going to use the tools of my trade (I'm an illustrator) to try to create a metaphor that explains what I mean: Synonyms of a word are like hues/nuance and saturation of a colour. To paint a picture, for example a portrait, you would need to use not only the right colours but also in the right nuance and in the saturation. Because even if you use the right colours, not using the right nuance and saturation will leave the picture looking naivistic and childish or even crude.
Do I make any sense? :-[

There are a lot of on-line lexicons available Websters online dictionary (  http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/ (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/) ) is one.

These guidlines usually works for me.

/D

Thx for that. I am using MS-Word 2007 (installed Version) with synonyms and thesaurus plus the dial-up Internet. No problem there.
All I need is to be pushed in line.
Just tell me gently, but firmly... what I should forget or when my word choice is incorrect. That's how I learn when I step out of line. In that regard treat me like a child.     ;D

The problem is, we don't know what you originally mean to be correct. 

I wonder if you know that to some of us you seem to be expressing great squawking distain for what we are doing here. Occasionally I can't understand why you are still hanging around if you find humbleness to be so offensive.

Humbleness is our most powerful tool as Toadfish siblings. It has made a big difference to those of us who have chosen to stay here. We have used it to find more contentment in our powers of communication. We invite you to stick around and give it a try. Will you?

One of the truly hardest things to do is to express yourself accurately with just the written word.

I am naturally a fairly abrasive person, I do not naturally suffer fools gladly and have little natural tolerance for ignorance.  I have been struggling with these characteristics all my adult life, and this year I will be 50.  However, I have found in the last few years that it is a great help to try and see what I have written from the POV of someone who has the opposite views to myself.  I play my own devils advocate, if you like.  I don't know why I have not done this before, after all it was a favourite tactic of mine when in the school debating team all those years ago.  Anyway I learnt the lesson.  In the year or so that I have been involved with the HOT, I have found that its ideals, especially of respect, humbleness and tolerance, have helped me a very great deal in real life.  I have found that I have become a better communicator and even more persuasive by not being so forceful and by allowing others the right to differ from me, even by demonstrating that I understand their POV.  I am now better able to put my point in a way that is not seen as threatening to others.  The new ideas sometimes seem to take root of their own accord and other people find that they move their position and at times I find myself shifting too.

Now I am trying to make this statement without seeming to be too boastful, because perversely it seems, that the less strident I become - the more humble - the more weight other people seem to accord what I have to say.  I am actively involved in work relating to the conservation of Australian native freshwater fish and have long been an active member of the peak body for native fish in the country.  Recently I have been invited to participate in many other forums (fora?) including government workshops, developing the implementation of some government policy and mending the fences between some up until now very disunited groups within the freshwater angling community.  I am proud of this  :irony: yet I put it down to really trying to take to heart the Toadfish ideals.  That is where the true responsibility for what is occurring lies, IMHO.  Allowing others the dignity to put their positions properly, not talking over them, not insisting they take your points,  Funnilly enough these approaches, so long as they are genuine - you cannot fake sincerity - really do work.

There is a great deal of wisdom among the siblings.  We do not agree on many of the things that we hold most important, such as religion, politics and so on, but that does not matter, we can discuss them here without the argument getting heated because we respect each other, we tolerate each siblings different view and we act humbly in that we do not try to force our POV on others or put ourselves ahead of them.  We do become very passionate about things at times, but we try very hard to avoid becoming personal or hurtful.  If we do accidentally do these things, or especially if we do so deliberately in the heat of the moment we make the effort to publically, and privately, apologise and to make amends.

This is not a heavy burden to bear, trust me.  It takes some working at in the beginning and we Toadfish can be very accepting of indiscretions of the new member on the site, so long as we detect a willingness to try to adhere to our ideal.  We do not expect perfection, even in long standing Siblings.  We are after all human.  It is the intent that matters.

I have seen that you do seem to want to try to understand what we are on about.  We would like nothing better than for you to choose to become a valued and contributing member of this place.  Think about what I have said, I think it may help you to fit in.  This is a broad community and there are many rooms in the monastery.  I am sure we can find one just right for you, if you are willing to travel with us on the journey.  We will always help out if you ask, sometime we don't wait to ask and that can at times seem a bit overbearing, I suppose.  However, I can assure you that we wish you nothing but good things and we want to help you to fit in here.

I think I'm beginning to prattle on a bit, so that's enough from me now.

Regards,

Sibling Bluenose

Bluenose ,there is extra water in my eyes .

Yes, Bluenose you are a Gentleman and a great Aussi mate. Unfortunately my English isn't as good as yours an so, I have to content with what I can scribble together... I take a good example from you!

You see, I consider philosophical pondering and reasoning 'hard work' and albeit my writing style I might look/ sound out of whack at times, I really don't mean to offend anyone.
Also, I don't want to be stubborn or always be right. As you have seen, I'm happy to discuss anything and when I see it's not right, then I give reasons why I think it's not right. On the other hand if I have evidence for something to be right tan of course I'll be unable to yield and this attitude then could easily be interpreted as being inflexible or that I want to be right 'all the time'. To make matters worse, I'll be lacking concrete evidence, which I'm not supposed to disclose. Well, as mentioned, I shall try and see. Hopefully things aren't as cloudy as I'm depicting them.It's something new for me...

 I think I'm beginning to understang jjj a lot more, now. I've learned alot more about his thinking. I've also learned a lot more about my own thinking, since we started discussions around jjj's thoughts and postings. And I've learned a lot from, and about, my Siblings here! :grouphug:  Darlica, and Bluenose have been an especially delightful surprise (silly me for being surprised!  :P).

I think I come to quite a lot of different conclusions from jjj, as indeed I do with many of my Siblings here, and I welcome that. It's quite boring when everybody agrees all the time. I'm also now pretty sure that most of the 'alarming' disagreements we seem to have had are simply misunderstandings due to language usage. Well, that's nothing so unusual!
I'm now resolved to pay careful attention to how I'm reading jjj, and remember the ways in which we've been misunderstanding each other. I'm resolved to be generous and thoughtful in providing feedback to our new friend so that we all can grow in understanding each other...
jjj, I'd like you to stay around, and contribute, and help us all grow and learn together.  :D :hug:

Quote from: jjj on August 14, 2007, 12:39:29 PM

QuoteI do admire those who take pride in striving for personal excellence as long as they do not use others unwillingly to attain such a goal .

Just thinking... when, where or how I did such a thing? Not that I am aware of. I disclosed my age to introduce myself to members. So, members have a better idea of what life experiences and homework to expect or not to expect... but it was ill-conceived. At the same time I also introduced my achievements, aimed at enriching the forum, not merely to flaunt them unsubstantiatedly.

QuoteHowever if one flaunts their achievements continually to the same person(s)  repeatedly ,  personal pride becomes....boastful , do you agree?

Well, as mentioned, if the reference is applied out of context (other than proof) then personal pride becomes....boastful, I agree.
Again, I'm just thinking... when, where or how I did such a thing? Not that I am aware of. The only way I mention my 'achievements' is when they are needed as evidence to support my statement. Or maybe I should ask: Show me a context where I unnecessarily, boastfully flaunted my achievements. This way I can readjust my 'flaunting filter/ gauge'... and so, avoid upsetting our humble, flaunt sensitive members. With bi-lateral good will we can achieve heavenly harmony... taking care not even mentioning this very achievement.
Post/after thought: Considering the alternatives... what would have happened if I would have not mentioned non-of anything?
A: It would be virtually impossible for me to substantiate my claims. For instance: If I claimed that my certain abilities were inherited (not acquired) than I had no gained personal insight from life experiences to back up my claim. In other words I can honestly say that most of my gained insight I originated and thus, benefit from. That's why I find it so hard to conceal its source. Hence, I apply my achievements as evidence  for my claims... or they won't make sense.

For me, what you have written above has highlighted some aspects that may have impeded progress here. It also touches on something Darlica said. I can't think of any forum member who has announced their achievements, or who has made any "claims" during the time we all have got to know each other, as a means of getting to know each other. Our insights have been voiced as just our views. Gradually it has become apparent that some have knowledge in certain areas, some don't but have interesting ways of looking at things nonetheless. It might also be of interest to you that quite a few have knowledge and skills, established outside the Monastery, some professionally, similar to those you "claim" but have never psoted anything specific about that.

Again, for me, this is a place where the extraordinary battles that wage in the outside world to "establish" oneself simply don't apply.

Quote from: jjj on August 14, 2007, 04:22:48 PM
Also, I don't want to be stubborn or always be right. As you have seen, I'm happy to discuss anything and when I see it's not right, then I give reasons why I think it's not right. On the other hand if I have evidence for something to be right tan of course I'll be unable to yield and this attitude then could easily be interpreted as being inflexible or that I want to be right 'all the time'. To make matters worse, I'll be lacking concrete evidence, which I'm not supposed to disclose. Well, as mentioned, I shall try and see. Hopefully things aren't as cloudy as I'm depicting them.It's something new for me...

Hi jjj, I suspect that this may well be at the heart of the problem.  Many of the Toadfish have very definite opinions on many matters, for example I am one of those who do not believe in any god or gods.  I am convinced, to the maximum degree of certainty that I have about anything, that this is correct.  Yet there are many Toadfish who hold the completely opposite view - and quite a few who fall somewhere in between.  Despite this, which may seem like a fundamental difference, some of those with the most confirmed belief in God I would count amongst my best friends here.  On any "normal" web forum this would probably not be possible, but the Toadfish Monastery is a special place.  Like Mero, I keep finding out yet again just how special it is and I never cease to be amazed at the depth of the Siblings' insight into many different issues.  Then of course there are the pirates, a place where we can play and simply have a lot of fun.  What a woinderful place this is!

So, what do I recomend?  Well, when you are convinced you are right on a point I would say just state your case, once (important), and understand that others may not agree.  If your arguments have persuasive force, they will speak for themselves and others may well come to include some or all of what you say onto their own ideas.  They may not.  It does not matter either way, you do not need to convince us that you are right.  We enjoy the discussion and the testing of arguments (not fights BTW, argument is used here in the logical debate sense) and the interplay of different perspectives.

I suspect you have a great deal to offer and I can see how language can in this case be a barrier to clear communications.  Just try to be a bit less emphatic and try to explain the reasoning behind your views and I think you will get the hang of it.

This whole thread was started by a post from me, after I gave the subject a lot of thought. In that first post, I gave a lot of possibly controversial information, expressed some passionately held views, and made what might be seen as some outrageous claims. I expected to spark some lively discussion...
This has turned out to be a lively and interesting and productive thread. None of the points I wanted to stimulate discussion of have been addressed by anyone else.  :P :D That's both a useful lesson for me, and an opportunity for me to apply what I've learned here and elsewhere (Back when I was a 'major asshole' I'd have taken issue with that. I'd have wanted to be 'right', or at least controversial). It's also an illustration of what BlueNose was just talking about, in his second paragraph.  :D
I've actually learned a lot, and very different things from what I intended, and what might have been the result of my 'strutting my stuff'. ::)
Part of the magic of this place. It does take some getting used to. :)

Some of the points you made were addressed so I assume the ones you wanted addressed were not those.

One interesting point not addressed, was that I didn't appear in the Old Fart list ;)  :P :-X ::) :mrgreen:  :ROFL:

I just wanted to strut my stuff, and show off my breadth of knowledge  ::) And nobody cared!  :ROFL:

Why Sibling, I think of you as A Vibrant Young Woman Old Fart now you mention it.  :mrgreen:
Was it you or Opas who asked for a 'free farting zone' in the Monastery Garden?  :P

I've got some medicine now thank you ;D

.....but because the medicine has worked I have to see a different specialist to get to the bottom (!!) of it ;)

QuoteI'd like you to stay around, and contribute, and help us all grow and learn together.

Yes, good will from all sides is definitely the right approach in cooperation. I make sure that my intentions are exclusively positive and that automatically throws out negative speculations. The thing I thought of this morning (while painting my flat...) that I should say e.g. 'if we were...', instead of: 'if I were...'. I am also glad that I disclosed the source of my insight/ claims and so, I hope I won't be too hard pressed to deliver hard evidence. In this way it won't be to difficult to remain humble.
It's quite boring when everybody agrees all the time.
Yes, I was thinking that, too! What a coincidence! There you see, that it is only a matter of getting to each other better. Wait and see is the motto... otherwise we fall into all sorts of wrong conclusions and end up ...merely agreeing with each other. How silly!

QuoteThis is a place where the extraordinary battles that wage in the outside world to "establish" oneself simply don't apply.

OK, I got it now! Sounds good. Yet, that I disclosed my age etc. was meant as a personal introduction. That's how I identify all my friends. Frankly, I value them mainly for their good traits and abilities. If I don't know you I can only go by what you say and stay reserved and insecure about its origin and evidence. But, OK... let's see how things work out. It's something new for me.

Quote...state your case, once (important), and understand that others may not agree.

Yes, I'm used to that...

QuoteIf your arguments have persuasive force, they will speak for themselves and others may well come to include some or all of what you say onto their own ideas.  They may not.  It does not matter either way, you do not need to convince us that you are right.  We enjoy the discussion and the testing of arguments (not fights BTW, argument is used here in the logical debate sense) and the interplay of different perspectives.

This is something new to me, because in other fora I had to table hardcore evidence and that's where I needed to identify/ disclose the big guns. :)
Example: Some people insist that talents are acquired through lots of practice and hard work and that anyone can acquire talents that way. I don't agree to that, because I have got hard evidence for it. More I'm not supposed to say... how then will I back up my counter claim?

QuoteJust try to be a bit less emphatic and try to explain the reasoning behind your views and I think you will get the hang of it.

Since my reasons are mostly gained from life experiences and pondering, that's all I have got as evidence... and so, it's hard not to draw them in to prove the point. I'll see if I can somehow circumnavigate them or speak thorough a bunch of flowers... Normally, I prefer to be straightforward in these matters and not beat about the bush.
Mates in the army 'accused me' that I have got almost infinite patience to discuss a matter/problem until it's satisfactorily resolved... I'm also a pious fanatic! When asked if I believe in God: 'I don't know if God believes in me?'  I have my personal God, called 'The Power of the Universe'... That confuses them for a second or so and then add that it's simply 'nature and its divine laws of logic'; the symbol of a scale, which indicates that we are compelled to act logically correct in order to benefit from nature's generosity or we suffer the opposite... etc.

Quote from: jjj on August 15, 2007, 04:56:54 AM

Quote...state your case, once (important), and understand that others may not agree.

Yes, I'm used to that...

:o :o :o :ROFL:

A good early morn to All !... jj ...I must take my leave soon ....the rear of Pappy's house is screaming at me for attention .

The cats are as well , they are most content when I go outside with them ,  they are always at the door looking back and waiting for me or a house mate to oblige them .

Also the threads and e-mails have taken so much of my days ( and nights !!!)  . The content has been of an extraordinary  quality  :grouphug: :thumbsup: :exclaim:, I am felling such a relief the missing pieces of the puzzle were found .

I felt that the Monastery is the forum jjj belongs in . I did not forsee any of this . When all of this began to escalate I was thinking that maybe I could divert attention to Saucy Gert for the new members thread she stated . :mrgreen:

Gertie's thread inspired me to put out the word and now here we are jjj , welcome to the monastery ! now I must :Zzzz:...I need to :bed:

Thanks again, for all the welcome flowers. I feel better now. There were moments I thought to stop stirring you up, but it was a good lesson for us all. I was a bit too anxious to spill the beans and thought to play my game as I always did and if it fails, so be it. Now that we get to know each other better, things will eventually settle down and we all won.
In the last forum (DAF) I told them that the time has come for me to pack up, for I feel having returned the share I owed nature and now it's time to just selfishly enjoy the fruits of my struggle for contentment. Then good Smooth from (ILP) and Philip (from here)  encouraged me to continue. Since it's part of my earthly mission, I guess I just belong; just like a plier belongs to tools!

OK, back to the parenting and children discussion...

QuoteYes, young children should indeed obey the advice of their parents, for it is the duty of parents to guide and protect their kids. Thus, I strongly disagree to the contrary alternatives.

OK, we've been through young children (definition of, semi-established) and inadequate parenting (an eternal problem, as far back as Eve's first grandchild/as far back as the first proto-human to disagree with the parenting of her offspring: choose your own scenario) and the simple matter is this:

EVERY parent alive has made errors. Every parent that will ever live WILL make errors. Every child that has ever lived or ever will live WILL resent the parenting to which s/he was subjected in one way or another...and will vow NEVER to do that tho their own children. They may or may not...every generation makes its own new screw-ups, and every previous generation dwells on the unsuitability of the ensuing generation to do thing "properly".

Rap and Emo are hated by people who listened to the 80's Hair bands. People who gre up with late 60's psychedelica were BOUND to be headed straight for hell, according to the Bobby Soxers who listened to the original Rock and Roll...THAT was the music that would send you straight to Hell, every preacher worth his pulpit knew that!! Of course, those ignorant fools had listened to that skinny Mafia rat Frank Sinatra, and that be-bop music and that abysmal ragtime, and then there was all that horrid waltz music, whatever was wrong with plainsong, Oh, WHY must they chant...take a trip back. Every last generation has abhored the music, the manners, the morals of the the ones before.

As to antisocial behavior..how much of what's attributed to "teens" IS teens?? Damn little. It's the barely post-adolescents (AND the almost totally unparented that hang with them) that are the troublemakers in most areas.

You can't define inappropriate behavior based on age. The 27 year old guy with the drug problem isn't a teen. He may have had the problem from his adolescence, he may not have, but then again, it may be a familial thing...there are whole cultures of abuse, neglect, addiction and worse that thrive on the desperation of low income and the lack of education that low income promotes. (Our culture seems to have it backwards. You want better educated people? Allow them to get an education before they HAVE to work to help support their families.)

As to 'camps'--A Clockwork Orange anyone?? Hey, if it works...

Perhaps the "documentary" was one of Mel Sembler's little puff pieces. After all, Ambassador Sembler's been a "good guy" for years... (And he's not at ALL a disgusting chunk of offal, not at ALL :barf: ) He WAS Bush 1's Ambassador to Australia, after all. (Probably GHWB's attempt to keep Sembler out of Florida while Jeb's kids were growing up.)

http://www.alternet.org/story/27725/

QuoteThe story begins in 1976 when Sembler, who'd made his fortune in Florida real estate, founded STRAIGHT from the ashes of The Seed -- an earlier program suspended by the U.S. Senate for tactics reminiscent, said a senator, of Communist POW camps. But as the Reagan years rolled into view, and a climate of fear nurtured a Shock and Awe approach to teens, the Semblers found a new world of acceptance for an anything-goes treatment business, meting out punishment in privately run warehouses. Endorsers from Nancy Reagan to George H.W. Bush lent their names to the program, celebrating a role model weapon in the "war on drugs."

QuoteFrom the beginning, critics were shocked to find that the keepers freely acknowledged many of the tactics -- yet insisted they were necessary. Mel Sembler even seems to have been emboldened by painful questions about his clinics. "We've got nothing to hide -- we're saving lives," he said in 1977 after six directors quit over practices that included kicking a restrained youth. He remained closely involved in personnel management. Almost two decades later, recalling how the ACLU was furious about STRAIGHT's practices, Sembler told Florida Trend Magazine in 1997 -- "with a grin," the reporter wrote -- that "it just shows that we must have been doing things right."

And rather than clean up Florida's program, he apparently leaned on health inspectors in 1989 to go easy on it. Reports of a cover-up wouldn't emerge for four more years -- long years, for the teenagers committed to a program that wouldn't lose its license until 1993. STRAIGHT foe Bradbury, believing he'd been "brainwashed" into becoming an abusive counselor, brought the clinics to the attention of the state after years of protest. Inspector Lowell Clary of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services found that reports of illegally restrained and stomped-on teens had been swept under the rug, likely with help from Republican state senators, who went unnamed, but made phone calls urging the clinic stayed open. A "persistent foul odor" hung over this use of power, said a St. Petersburg Times Op-Ed applauding the death of STRAIGHT.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117088.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/121088.html

http://www.thestraights.com/index.htm

Yep, camps. Damn STRAIGHT.

QuoteEVERY parent alive has made errors.

Yes... ignorant idiots; mine too! (Except my beloved Tante Mize!)
That's, because sociologists/ psychologists/philosophers failed to offer professional advice to young parents. Every TV etc. come with a user's manual. What makes us think young parents know it all without it?

QuoteAs to 'camps'--A Clockwork Orange anyone?? Hey, if it works...

As mentioned, the documentary series I saw here on TV were called:
Brat Camp // Turn About ranch...
It was that good... it made me  :'(  You should have seen what their parents went through! If nothing of the sorts is done, it will simple destroy one family after another and cause endless anguish & suffering.

Now you might understand why I, after witnessing the mess of my parent's upbringing method, that I lost all credence in philosophers and  of the past and desperate tried to sort out personal problems...
and of how to end up 'a big, fat, contented cow in the green' regurgitating and benefiting from gained insight.
Please artists ...draw me a caricature! I love to add it to my books.

link=topic=792.msg33556#msg33556 date=1187333037]

QuoteEVERY parent alive has made errors.

Yes... ignorant idiots; mine too! (Except my beloved Tante Mize!)
[/quote]

I don't like my parents being called idiots... ;) :mrgreen:

Quote from: jjjThat's, because sociologists/ psychologists/philosophers failed to offer professional advice to young parents. Every TV etc. come with a user's manual. What makes us think young parents know it all without it?

A person isn't a machine. You can't have manuals for how to lead your life. Every person is defferent and need a different approach. Upbringing a child isn't like setting the VCR to record your favourite show, you can't just give the parent some kind of guidelines and tell them "that's how you raise your child". Every parent has to find out by himself...

What makes a philosopher more apt to raise my child than me? He wasn't there when the child came to world, he doesn't know me, nor the child.

QuoteA person isn't a machine. You can't have manuals for how to lead your life. Every parent has to find out by himself...

OK... put it this way: After young parents shaking their babies to stop them from crying, causing irreversible brain damage and after beating kids under the age of four, causing irreversible psychological damage... parents finally find out.  :'(

Quote
What makes a philosopher more apt to raise my child than me?

By offering young parents this (the above mentioned) kind of insight...

QuoteHe wasn't there when the child came to world, he doesn't know me, nor the child.

Yet, he knows the problems  most parents are going to face raising  children,because he learnt from his mistakes (or mistakes of others). Why do you want repeat them and destroy a new-born life? Can you imagine what his advice could have prevented?
But no... young parents (as you seem to insist) don't need this kind of advice, because they know it all... or do they?  Tell me again.  ;)

That's the kind of philosophy I practice... and true, past philosophers didn't mention such 'primitive' insight.

First, the fact that you should not shake or hit a baby or a child, because it can end up creating brain damage is not or has anything to do with philosophy, it is neurology! That if anything discussed in these recent threads is a proven scientific fact.

And jjj I'm with Sibling chatty on the content/cow thing, and being one who refuses to be a sheep in a heard I'm not going to settle for being a content cow either...

I guess I'll just stick the goats for the time being.

 

Quote... the fact that you should not shake or hit a baby or a child, because it can end up creating brain damage is not or has anything to do with philosophy, it is neurology!

Well, in that case genetics and behavioral problems have nothing to do with philosophy either! Is there anything left for us to discuss?  Sorry, mate I'm into anything that is vital to human life and concern... and in need of philosophical insight.

Quote...I'm with Sibling chatty on the content/cow thing, and being one who refuses to be a sheep in a heard I'm not going to settle for being a content cow either...

As usual, we are given the choice to be sheep, shepherd or a happy cow/ goat. All depends on how we behave/ which roll we choose to play on turf. IMHO

Quote from: jjjOK... put it this way: After young parents shaking their babies to stop them from crying, causing irreversible brain damage and after beating kids under the age of four, causing irreversible psychological damage... parents finally find out.

As Darlica mentioned, I don't see how this is connected to philosophy.

And honestly, I don't need a philosopher to tell me that beating up a toddler to death isn't the right thing to do.

Quote from: jjjBut no... young parents (as you seem to insist) don't need this kind of advice, because they know it all... or do they?  Tell me again.

I have never claimed that young parents know it all. Nobody does. I just say that there are no "guidelines" which would fit to every person, as you insist.

A "manual", as you put it, could damage the child even more.

Quote from: jjjWhy do you want repeat them and destroy a new-born life?

You have mentioned that even your parents have made mistakes with your upbringing. Do you consider your life destroyed? I thought you were satisfied with it...

My parents made mistakes during my upbringing. Do I blame them? No. Do I think they've destroyed my life? No. Did they have any guidelines given by some philosopher, sociologist, psychologist? No. I think I've worked out just fine... :)

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 10:28:36 AM
As usual, we are given the choice to be sheep, shepherd or a happy cow/ goat. All depends on how we behave/ which roll we choose to play on turf. IMHO

anyone who has spent time with goats knows that there is no such thing as a contented goat. Why? the urge to explore to discover whats over the bridge (or under it) and a certain degree of personality and individualism. Goats are always worried (see fainting goats for evidence) AND inquisitive and that is not a recipe for contentment.

They may not be contented but that is not the same as saying they are not happy. Contentment implies a sufficiency (which cows get from er... eating) for the inquisitive contentment is not an option because there is always another wall to climb, bridge to cross etc. It is possible a language issue but your use of contentment as a goal gives me the creeps!

PS. Please do not bracket Goats with Cows.   :mrgreen: ;D

Well said Goat!

I can feel my inner goat getting all restless and wondering what's over that hill there right now!

QuoteAs Darlica mentioned, I don't see how this is connected to philosophy.

Please don't gang up...

QuoteAnd honestly, I don't need a philosopher to tell me that beating up a toddler to death isn't the right thing to do.

True, that much most (not all) young parents seem to know, but shaking babies and harming them psychologically, amazingly fewer parents seem to know. Thus, to offer them at least these kind of basic guidelines would be vital IMHO, but I don't expect you to agree. So, we will see many more brain/ emotionally damaged children emerging... until something is done about it. You might feel comfortable with it, but I don't.

Quote...anyone who has spent time with goats knows that there is no such thing as a contented goat.

Yes, this trait is well know.  That would indentify me with all three (sheep, goat & cow), because I started off as sheep, then progressed to goat and now enjoy the green pasture like a contented cow. Yes, please draw another caricature of that image...Thx

My favoured progression would be:

cow - easily pleased, compliant, used for slavish drudgery pulling carts and making wells pump. only moves if the grass runs out.
sheep - easily led and not terribly inquisitive but naturally uncompliant
goat - not led anywhere, utterly uncompliant, investigates everything then does the opposite of what you expect. funny and charming yer with the ability to fight its corner. Well dressed. Provides a real sustainable supply of milk and wool (unlike cows that consume more than they contribute and require prime arable land to thrive). Can climb trees.

 

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 11:18:39 AM

QuoteAs Darlica mentioned, I don't see how this is connected to philosophy.

Please don't gang up...

Why not?  It's okay in nature and nature is "perfect" right?  :mrgreen:  In nature the sick and the old get eaten.  Why should it be different here?  :mrgreen:

Quote from: jjjPlease don't gang up...

I'm not ganging up. I was just referring to the fact that I agree with a post of a fellow sibling...

Quote from: jjjSo, we will see many more brain/ emotionally damaged children emerging... until something is done about it. You might feel comfortable with it, but I don't.

I don't say that I feel comfortable with "emerging of "brain/emotionally damaged children" because of the way they've been treated. I just don't see how some guidelines could prevent people from behaving as they do.

There's one thing I've asked before, you haven't aswered and I'd really like to know, in order to understand your "guidelines"-concept better:

Quote

Quote from: jjj
Why do you want repeat them and destroy a new-born life?

Quote

You have mentioned that even your parents have made mistakes with your upbringing. Do you consider your life destroyed? I thought you were satisfied with it...

I just don't see how some guidelines could prevent people from behaving as they do.
I tell you how:  in most cases it's sheer ignorance! Anything helps to cut down on this horrific toll. Doing nothing is worse!!
You have mentioned that even your parents have made mistakes with your upbringing. Do you consider your life destroyed? I thought you were satisfied with it...
Partly, I explained it already: As you know... the first 9 years of my life I was brought up with lots of love (no beating) with my dearest aunt Tante Mieze in Czechoslovakia. After that my aunt returned me to my family and there my horrible pious parents tried to beat the hell out of me. They were fanatic Catholics. (Result: now I refuse to lick cattle! :mrgreen:)
This didn't change my views about love & affection, which my parents lacked, but I failed at school. Then, aged 15, I left East-Germany for West Germany (Hannover). My uncle didn't beat me physically, but emotionally... by discriminating me. His children had priority in every way. After serving 2 years at the army I turned 21 and tasted freedom for the first time. From that on my philosophical pondering and planning began in earnest.
I trust/hope from that you are able to draw constructive conclusions.

I'm sorry to hear that you had a rough youth.

Do you think that your upbringing would be different, if your family had the guidelines, you're suggesting?

IMHO, it wouldn't. These guidelines wouldn't bring love in your childhood. No guidelines can. Parental love is something you either have, or don't. It can't be taught and you don't obtain it if someone tells you that you have to love the child.

 

QuoteDo you think that your upbringing would be different, if your family had the guidelines, you're suggesting? IMHO, it wouldn't. These guidelines wouldn't bring love in your childhood. No guidelines can. Parental love is something you either have, or don't. It can't be taught and you don't obtain it if someone tells you that you have to love the child.

I agree, love and affection has to be instilled before the age of four. If that fails, it's impossible to make up for it! I experienced it and witnessed it on various other people.
Interesting point: I have four siblings and their understanding of love is totally different to mine, because of my separate upbringing. We are even unable to talk about it, because what you don't know... you think you don't miss it. Yet, their partner relationships disclose it and they just wonder why mine is so harmonious... Mind you, it wasn't easy for me, too. I paid with two failed marriages/ apprenticeships, until I discovered/ gained the above mentioned insight.

Yet, young couples should be offered basic advice on how to avoid harming seriously harming their children. In most cases it' ignorance.
To instill love & affection cannot be taught by guidelines... but something can and should  be done about it, too. One can only give love when one received love or one can only give kicks when one only received kicks!

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 03:10:56 PM
To instill love & affection cannot be taught by guidelines...

Now that you've clarified/amended your views to that point, I agree with you: information for basic parenting ought to be provided to parents (and, IMHO, people are trying to get the information out - in Jacksonville, I saw a huge billboard that simply said "Never shake a baby" and had the URL of a parenting website underneath). But beyond the basic physical and physiological health of the child, it's impossible to teach love, affection, and many other things that provide happiness and a positive force in the upbringing of a child.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 03:10:56 PM
but something can and should  be done about it, too.

Ah, now we get to the interesting part. What can be done? And how?

Somehow we need to bring back love into the family life. Not an easy task, but let's think of how this can be achieved... My Idea is EPE or early, philosophical education... what's yours? (Why should I alway put my best notions forward and them be gurgled up as 'wrong' and compared to Hitler?

It's because you think your so smart that you can play god with genetics just like Hitler did.  No one is smart enough to do this.  You don't know what side effects you'll get not to mention that you reduce diversity when you do it!

I'm a little startled by the notion of 'bringing back love into family life', when was it ever taken out? And by whom? And how?
If you are saying that some people are dysfunctional and don't show love in their family life, are you then concluding that this is general, or even common? I genuinely don't understand what you're saying here or why you're saying it...

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 04:17:21 PM
Somehow we need to bring back love into the family life. Not an easy task, but let's think of how this can be achieved... My Idea is EPE or early, philosophical education... what's yours?

I don't have one. That's why I'm asking you. :mrgreen:

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 04:17:21 PM
(Why should I alway put my best notions forward and them be gurgled up as 'wrong' and compared to Hitler?)

You don't have to, if you don't want to. By the principles of openness and communication we encouraged here, you are free to put forward what ideas you wish, and those who respond are free to put forward what ideas they wish, and you are free to put forward whatever responses you have, and the cycle goes on. Whether I agree with you or not, I am glad to see your willingness to offer your thoughts in this forum. On the other hand, if you would prefer that an idea not be scrutinized and honestly responded to, you are under no obligation to share it.

 

QuoteI'm a little startled by the notion of 'bringing back love into family life', when was it ever taken out? And by whom? And how? If you are saying that some people are dysfunctional and don't show love in their family life, are you then concluding that this is general, or even common?

Every child wishes to be born into loving family environment. Sadly, this is not always the case. Personally, I enjoyed/suffered both situations and have no doubt which one to recommend. Offering a child a cruel childhood has its serious consequences; not only for the child, but the community at large. Listening to childhood stories of criminal ...one almost pardons their horrendous crimes committed.
The power of parental love is incredible; it changes your whole life. You'll be much happier with yourself and a great spouse!  To thoroughly describe the countless advantages thereof one needs to experience it. Words cannot describe the power of parental love and affection and their impact on our lives. If you suffered a cruel childhood you won't understand what I'm on/ raving about. Forget it!

QuoteOn the other hand, if you would prefer that an idea not be scrutinized and honestly responded to, you are under no obligation to share it.

POINT TAKEN!    ;)

I find myself unable to change the whole world.
All I can do is change me.
I am committed to that.
I will be what I want the world to be.

Quote from: jjj on August 17, 2007, 04:17:21 PM
Somehow we need to bring back love into the family life. Not an easy task, but let's think of how this can be achieved... My Idea is EPE or early, philosophical education... what's yours? (Why should I alway put my best notions forward and them be gurgled up as 'wrong' and compared to Hitler?

may i suggest a programme that will bring puissance through ecstacy?

we could call it..................

 

QuoteI find myself unable to change the whole world.
All I can do is change me.
I am committed to that.

Yes, that was my philosophy, too!

QuoteI will be what I want the world to be.

Not good enough, because you still depend on others... who envy your contentment and believe that they get more for themselves by robbing you!.
That's why all people of good will should co-operate towards a better society!

Quotemay i ...suggest a programme that will bring puissance through ecstacy?

I was told to be more 'serious' or else I wan't have a job here in the forum.  ;D

I admit that I don't know what was told to you by our admin, but I highly doubt they said to be more serious. Because if that were so, we'd loose many people. And a monastery is nothing without its inhabitants.

I also agree with Mero. You can do little but lead by example, and to be what we want of the world is a step forward. You cannot reasonably force others to conform. That's fascism, I do believe.

Quote from: Kanaloa the Squidly on August 18, 2007, 07:58:03 PM
I admit that I don't know what was told to you by our admin, but I highly doubt they said to be more serious. Because if that were so, we'd loose many people. And a monastery is nothing without its inhabitants.

I also agree with Mero. You can do little but lead by example, and to be what we want of the world is a step forward. You cannot reasonably force others to conform. That's fascism, I do believe.

I'm not a mod or admin in any way or form but that would be me in post #114 at the Trade agreements thread, read it and I think you will understand what I meant.

I read it, Darl, I'm not sure if I understand why you directed me to it. Could you please explain?

Quote from: Kanaloa the Squidly on August 18, 2007, 10:51:29 PM
I read it, Darl, I'm not sure if I understand why you directed me to it. Could you please explain?

She mentioned his being serious in it. It's at least a minimal explanation for his otherwise non-responsive reply.

Did she? Did she mean #115, because #114 is jjj's.

I have to seem thick, but I'm still not getting it.

Grey, this is the post...I think...

QuoteQuote from: jjj on Today at 02:04:56 AM

Stay clear of Thailand, because a friend of my brother was their two years ago, caught AIDS and now my brother got his ashes. At least hairs between fingers won't kill you!
===========Then Darl said


Your horniness is non of our business neither the way you choose handle it.
Condolences to your brothers for his friend. However this sentence about Thailand and there by Thai people not only borders to racism, it crosses the bridges and burns them behind it.

Have you for one second considered that there may be Thai people present here?

This is not funny, at all. If you consider this funny please stick to being serious.

I'm getting a sense of "OK, Mr. TMI Guy, you're just getting worse, not better and you seem to be enjoying it. As to the Thailand thing, ---(my interpretation here) If you don't do things you shouldn't do with people that you've got no business doing it with you won't get AIDS, especially not a strain that'll kill within 2 years, so if your brother's friend had to go to Thailand to get laid in the LONG KNOWN highly infected sex-trade areas there, DO NOT BLAME THE COUNTRY OR THE PEOPLE. (Because Darl's a nice lady, she wouldn't add the "you incredible bigot" part that I would.)

And I think she's probably agreeing that the 'staff' around here has been WAY tolerant. Because left up to me, that crap woulda hit the trash and taken the poster of same with it right about the time that post hit the board, no matter how tolerant I or anyone else had been before.

But then I'm allergic to bullshit, ya know. ::)

Kanaloa, in my browser my posts are marked 113 and 114 I directed you to the later post so you could see where he may have got the "I was told to be more 'serious'" idea from. I should have expressed my self clearer. I'm sorry, my bad. :(

/D

No worries! Thanks for that, both of you!
I was seeing a totally different post, something or other about shaking babies, not about AIDS and Thailand.