Our kids and how they behave

[An Fear Dubh]

Louisiana Lady - I can not know what people might mean, but I can assess their statements by the general thrust of their argument. Now rather than get drawn into nit picking words (you said, "I loved the analogy of the dog! A dog learns to obey its master, and it can be taught in one of two ways. The dog can learn to obey from fear of punishment or it can learn from a desire to please and respect the authority of its master’s commands." - I thought the analogy to be a poor one as humans are not dogs, and there is no lesson to be learnt in how we train dogs and equate it with teaching children.) But as I said nit picking words serves no real purpose and I would like to keep the debate on track and if you now feel differently about the analogy or wish to put the emphasis differently fair enough.

I agree with you that I do not see people hankering after the past. But I wanted to highlight that this past where the working class man doffed his hat and the children were seen but not heard is a thing of the past and while there were merits to this 'deference to better/elders' (I am reluctant to use the word respect because it was not really respect), it also taught our children that others were more equal than they were in society. In my world everyone is equal and there is no hierarchy. I suppose that like you I teach my children manners. But I do not teach them to be subservient to anyone, even me. I like everyone else make mistakes, should my child respectfully obey me regardless or should they be able to mannerly point out that I am in error. We need to be very careful how we push this into the greater community. As you and I and our children might understand the unsaid boundaries, those to whom such a relationship is new will not.

You asked the question, "Why should basic family values change?" I am unsure what you mean by that term exactly. I assume you are talking of manners and being polite, both you and Bilk use the term 'respect' and I have reluctantly for the purpose of this debate joined with you. But I think I pointed out earlier on that you are both not really talking about respect but more manners and being polite. Respect is not something we can teach. Respect is learnt (as you said) by showing example. But the developing child is open to learning and the parents input is significant but small compared to all the other examples the child learns. From teachers, school, TV, from the way we run our societies. When the average working class man doffed his hat and the children were seen and not heard, our societies was very different. I agree that parents do have a large role to play and a big responsibility. And one of those roles is to help the child identify the good and bad influences. The average teenager is a hormone driven mess and if I as parent say one thing is wrong and the child is not to do it because I say so, then 90% of teenagers will do the exact opposite to my request. Is the child being 'disrespectful' or have I gone about this in the wrong way? If children are taught that greed is good. And our society is a capitalist one and the key lesson of capitalism is greed is good, then at Christmas excessive and financially unrealistic demands are made by teenagers. The one parent who bucks the peer pressure of teenagers and the local society (other parents) and says that such demands are unrealistic because of financial restraints, is in conflict with their teenage child. It was with this type of scenario in mind that I said the lesson of the parent is lost. As all the child sees is their mates having and they do not, therefore by their logic they are not equal in society.

I talked about state violence and you said the reaction to it can also be a teaching tool. I agree. But the majority of people like the status quo and so long as it does not directly effect them they adopt a dumb stance. And if their brush with state violence is brief and can be avoided again in the future they will cower and accept the violence of the state. So the lesson for the majority is to accept violence against ones person if it is the state administering the violence. Is this right? Of course it is not but this goes to what Bilk has been saying. That the laws often designed to protect the innocent tie the hand of justice. And while I agree with him I find it difficult to find a compromise. And for that reason I think laws that protect the Innocent but are abused by the guilty have to remain. Until a better one can be found. I have and I am sure others have seen tv footage where people arrested or stopped for minor offenses have had excessive force used on them, and the police defense is 'resisting arrest', but the footage clearly shows the force used was excessive. Should we remove the defense of 'resisting arrest' no because the police do need this power. What are the lessons the youth have learnt? We should be teaching them that state violence is a last resort when all else has failed, not a knee jerk reaction to a few hoods on a street corner.

[Bilk]

Apr 17, 2008 10:09:19 GMT An Fear Dubh said:

Louisiana Lady - I can not know what people might mean, but I can assess their statements by the general thrust of their argument. Now rather than get drawn into nit picking words (you said, "I loved the analogy of the dog! A dog learns to obey its master, and it can be taught in one of two ways. The dog can learn to obey from fear of punishment or it can learn from a desire to please and respect the authority of its master’s commands." - I thought the analogy to be a poor one as humans are not dogs, and there is no lesson to be learnt in how we train dogs and equate it with teaching children.) But as I said nit picking words serves no real purpose and I would like to keep the debate on track and if you now feel differently about the analogy or wish to put the emphasis differently fair enough.

I agree with you that I do not see people hankering after the past. But I wanted to highlight that this past where the working class man doffed his hat and the children were seen but not heard is a thing of the past and while there were merits to this 'deference to better/elders' (I am reluctant to use the word respect because it was not really respect), it also taught our children that others were more equal than they were in society. In my world everyone is equal and there is no hierarchy. I suppose that like you I teach my children manners. But I do not teach them to be subservient to anyone, even me. I like everyone else make mistakes, should my child respectfully obey me regardless or should they be able to mannerly point out that I am in error. We need to be very careful how we push this into the greater community. As you and I and our children might understand the unsaid boundaries, those to whom such a relationship is new will not.

You asked the question, "Why should basic family values change?" I am unsure what you mean by that term exactly. I assume you are talking of manners and being polite, both you and Bilk use the term 'respect' and I have reluctantly for the purpose of this debate joined with you. But I think I pointed out earlier on that you are both not really talking about respect but more manners and being polite. Respect is not something we can teach. Respect is learnt (as you said) by showing example. But the developing child is open to learning and the parents input is significant but small compared to all the other examples the child learns. From teachers, school, TV, from the way we run our societies. When the average working class man doffed his hat and the children were seen and not heard, our societies was very different. I agree that parents do have a large role to play and a big responsibility. And one of those roles is to help the child identify the good and bad influences. The average teenager is a hormone driven mess and if I as parent say one thing is wrong and the child is not to do it because I say so, then 90% of teenagers will do the exact opposite to my request. Is the child being 'disrespectful' or have I gone about this in the wrong way? If children are taught that greed is good. And our society is a capitalist one and the key lesson of capitalism is greed is good, then at Christmas excessive and financially unrealistic demands are made by teenagers. The one parent who bucks the peer pressure of teenagers and the local society (other parents) and says that such demands are unrealistic because of financial restraints, is in conflict with their teenage child. It was with this type of scenario in mind that I said the lesson of the parent is lost. As all the child sees is their mates having and they do not, therefore by their logic they are not equal in society.

I talked about state violence and you said the reaction to it can also be a teaching tool. I agree. But the majority of people like the status quo and so long as it does not directly effect them they adopt a dumb stance. And if their brush with state violence is brief and can be avoided again in the future they will cower and accept the violence of the state. So the lesson for the majority is to accept violence against ones person if it is the state administering the violence. Is this right? Of course it is not but this goes to what Bilk has been saying. That the laws often designed to protect the innocent tie the hand of justice. And while I agree with him I find it difficult to find a compromise. And for that reason I think laws that protect the Innocent but are abused by the guilty have to remain. Until a better one can be found. I have and I am sure others have seen tv footage where people arrested or stopped for minor offenses have had excessive force used on them, and the police defense is 'resisting arrest', but the footage clearly shows the force used was excessive. Should we remove the defense of 'resisting arrest' no because the police do need this power. What are the lessons the youth have learnt? We should be teaching them that state violence is a last resort when all else has failed, not a knee jerk reaction to a few hoods on a street corner.

On the subject of the puppy, since I was the one who raised it, there is not only one way or another to raise a dog. Their is a third way, which is commonly known as "carrot and stick" both when used within reason have a poitive effect on both human and dog. And by the way, in my view a dog is every bit as smart and educated as most humans I know, and it learns a lot faster.

In todays world, certainly regarding humans and in particular children, life appears to be all carrot. The stick has been removed totally from the upbringing of a child and has been replaced by lavish helpings of the carrot.

You have given examples of police misuse of their powers and the footage you have seen of it. The prolem I have with that is the adage of the aeroplane. The footage you get of a plane flying into the side of a mountain is graphic and terrifying, that's why someone took the trouble to shoot the footage. The other thousands of planes that take off everyday without incident are of no interest to us.

As for doffing my hat to anyone you couldn't be further from the truth. Another thing my mum taught me was, and I quote. "You are better than no one, then again no one is better than you", another lesson in respect.

I have just been reading a story about a poor cyclist who was lying in the street somewhere in England. To cut a long story short, he was knocked off his bike. The person who knocked him off didn't stop? He was lying in the road and car after car drove around him, none of them stopped? It is even suspected that one of them drove over him breaking both his legs? The reason they believe that is because his legs were broken after he died. Because he did die, by the time someone did come to his aid he was already dead.
This is not just about the law and who is breaking it etc. etc. It is about the behaviour of one human being towards another, there is a total lack of respect from the vast majority out there. It seems only those who break the law are shown any respect. We could go on about this for the next 2 weeks. In my view the problems we have in society today comes down to a total and utter lack of respect.

Reaspect for the law- who could respect it it's become a joke.
Respect for our elders - they are treated like crap by the young who terrorise them.
Respect for the institutions of government- because we all think we could do it better.
Respect for the views of others- because if they don't believe as I do they then they must be plain wrong.
Respect for socalled dumb animals, they are abused everyday in mans fight for cheaper food- They are more intelegent than most humans. A dog can learn any language in the world. Depending on who is their keeper, they come to understand what they are saying. Show me a human that can understand one bark, just one?

I could go on all day, but my point is that almost all the ills of world can be brought down to one phrase "A total lack of respect" We no longer teach our kids to respect others, and they grow into disrespectful adults. Then we wonder what has gone wrong with the world.

And the subject of state violence is not for this thread, it is for another thread. It is too complex to be lumped into a thread about the behaviour of our kids.

[An Fear Dubh]

I can not be convinced that humans should be treated like dogs no matter which way it is presented. I do not know of any dog that can be taught to talk, no matter how many carrots and sticks you have. I find it impossible to truly believe that the humans you know are only as smart and as intelligent as dogs. Everyone (leaving aside medical issues) has the same capacity to learn and therefore given equal opportunities everyone is of the same 'intelligence'. Copying trained behavior is not education but simply mimicry. And dogs do not learn language they learn voice tone. You can say the same thing in two different tones and get two different responses. You need to read about Pavlov and his dog experiments.

While I can be amazed at the lengths humans will go to offend and be offended, to mankind's ability to invent new ways to harm other humans, or at the society we have created that shows a lack of indifference to others. But all these things does not mean we are uneducated or unable to learn. I agree we have a society where the most important value is greed. And we see this most easily reflected in the naked and undisguised way that our children behave and the things they demand. But we through our society and its values have created this greed where children demand more than can be financially provided and more than they need. I do see the need for the stick and carrot approach, but we must choose very carefully the time and the place we use it. As with any punishment once it becomes over used its effectiveness diminishes as a deterrent. It is better to threaten punishment without having to actually use it but it must be known that it will be used if the offender is persistent.

I have to admit Bilk you lost me with your aeroplane adage, I do not see how that relates to laws to protect innocent people from abuse. Or are you saying you are not interested if innocent people are being abused if you know that 'guilty' people are being abused??

We have a capitalist society and the core value of capitalism is self-greed. And around this everything else is built and anything is allowed so long as it does not go against or inhibit the core value. Capitalism does not want a 'respectful' society, as this inhibits the core value. If countries respected each other we would have no wars. Profit is the motivation for war, there is no profit in 'respect'. The motivation for crime is profit either financial or sexual, there is no criminal profit in 'respect'.

So my view is that a lack of 'respect' is not the problem but a symptom of the bad system we have used to build our society on. You can change the laws and have a more draconian police state. But there are enough example about to realize that this is not the answer. As it does not solve the problem but makes the issues far greater. To truly teach our children 'respect' we must build a society that has at its core values that are about community and working together for the benefit/profit of everyone even those who are disadvantaged and who's social contribution is less than the majority.

But we must set ourselves long term and short term and medium term goals that are realistic and achievable.

[Bilk]

Apr 22, 2008 9:19:24 GMT An Fear Dubh said:

I can not be convinced that humans should be treated like dogs no matter which way it is presented. I do not know of any dog that can be taught to talk, no matter how many carrots and sticks you have. I find it impossible to truly believe that the humans you know are only as smart and as intelligent as dogs. Everyone (leaving aside medical issues) has the same capacity to learn and therefore given equal opportunities everyone is of the same 'intelligence'. Copying trained behavior is not education but simply mimicry. And dogs do not learn language they learn voice tone. You can say the same thing in two different tones and get two different responses. You need to read about Pavlov and his dog experiments.

While I can be amazed at the lengths humans will go to offend and be offended, to mankind's ability to invent new ways to harm other humans, or at the society we have created that shows a lack of indifference to others. But all these things does not mean we are uneducated or unable to learn. I agree we have a society where the most important value is greed. And we see this most easily reflected in the naked and undisguised way that our children behave and the things they demand. But we through our society and its values have created this greed where children demand more than can be financially provided and more than they need. I do see the need for the stick and carrot approach, but we must choose very carefully the time and the place we use it. As with any punishment once it becomes over used its effectiveness diminishes as a deterrent. It is better to threaten punishment without having to actually use it but it must be known that it will be used if the offender is persistent.

I have to admit Bilk you lost me with your aeroplane adage, I do not see how that relates to laws to protect innocent people from abuse. Or are you saying you are not interested if innocent people are being abused if you know that 'guilty' people are being abused??

We have a capitalist society and the core value of capitalism is self-greed. And around this everything else is built and anything is allowed so long as it does not go against or inhibit the core value. Capitalism does not want a 'respectful' society, as this inhibits the core value. If countries respected each other we would have no wars. Profit is the motivation for war, there is no profit in 'respect'. The motivation for crime is profit either financial or sexual, there is no criminal profit in 'respect'.

So my view is that a lack of 'respect' is not the problem but a symptom of the bad system we have used to build our society on. You can change the laws and have a more draconian police state. But there are enough example about to realize that this is not the answer. As it does not solve the problem but makes the issues far greater. To truly teach our children 'respect' we must build a society that has at its core values that are about community and working together for the benefit/profit of everyone even those who are disadvantaged and who's social contribution is less than the majority.

But we must set ourselves long term and short term and medium term goals that are realistic and achievable.

No 1, I never said a dog could talk, I said it comes to understand any language, not speak it, it's vocal cords were not made for speaking. Humans on the other hand cannot understand what one single bark means. Animals in my opinion learn much more quickly than humans.

The plane adage you do not understand? I think it's obvious what it means. You see footage of police officers abusing people, you do not see footage of the thousands of other police officers every day who go about their duties without harming a soul, that is of no interest to anyone. Same principle as the plane, and you don't understand that?

The first thing, when I was young, a child was taught was respect. That was what went first. It was not a victim of todays behaviour, you have it the wrong way round. Todays behaviour began when kids were no longer taught respect.

[Louisiana Lady]

AFD, one of the points you have disagreed about is that both bilk and I are confusing respect with good manners, so I would like to give you an example of the difference. One of my daughters is a schoolteacher and over the years the children who are considered “trouble makers” or “problem children” always seemed to be assigned to her classroom, because of her uncanny ability to handle these special children. In the past she taught 5 and 6 year olds in communities of many underprivileged children, some with unbelievable family environments that affects not only their schoolwork and attendance, but also their character and their ability to get along in a social environment with their classmates. Through the year, her personal teaching techniques always included teaching these children to have respect for her and each other within the walls of her classroom. She said it was obvious that few had ever had any instruction on being respectful. She would, from day one, stop them answering with “yeah” or “naw” when asked a question and insisted they say “yes, Mam” or no Mam”….and the respect for her would begin.

The entire school staff is always amazed how she keeps order inside and outside her classroom with these “problem” children. It is not manners that keep them in line…it is their respect for her, and she says it is because it is a mutual thing. She gives respect to them in return….some thing many of them have never been given.

This year she was assigned to teach 11 years olds. And, as you know, eleven year olds are much more worldly today and speak up more and talk back more and try to prove their independence. As usual, all the problem children ended up in her class. One particular boy has been a major problem all the way through school. He is much older than the others, due to failures, and so much larger in statue than the others. He is even taller than my daughter! He has spent much of his time in detention or being expelled from school for attacking other children and even some of his teachers. He prides himself in being “bad”. He has a reputation of being a “hood” and the other children are afraid of him so he is very much a loner. He is an angry kid who acts out and has had incidents of being uncontrollable. He saw his dad killed when he was five, his mother is in prison and after being found living in an old abandoned car, he was given to his aunt who tries to take care of him and several others. When he first came in to my daughters class he was very much a bully towards her, using words that an eleven year old should not know and at one point even leaving a threatening note on her desk. But she did what she always did. She would not give in to his antics, she ignored the bad behavior and was very respectful of his needs. For instance, she noticed that he couldn’t stand the noise and crowds at the hallway lockers so when she noticed him coming inside the school building early so he could get his books from his locker and get in the room before the crowds came in she just gave him an understanding glance and said nothing. She told him what she expected of him and told him she would show him the same respect he showed her. He is still rude to many of the other school children and other teachers, he has no manners at all when it comes to in eating or communicating or social skills because he was never taught any but he has the highest regard for my daughter because she has instilled in him the meaning of respect. He now listens to her teach without disrupting the class and has not had a discipline problem that required being sent to the principals office for detention. He actually did helped one of the other students do something the other day and she told him, “See you’re not bad at all.” He smiled and whispered back to her, “Shhhh, don’t tell anyone I have a reputation to uphold you know”.

So you see learning respect does change behavior and there is an enormous difference between manners and respect.

[Blue Angel]

Indeed and I think manners are an useful skill to have learnt as the form part of any cohesive social group if it is to last. I can relate to AFD's point about respect been a two way street as his points about been raised to use your own mind and challenge thinking if it seemed sloppy or ill-constructed is similar to my own childhood. This did not mean challenging for the sake of challenging which is an asinine and annoying thing to do, but I was not expected to automatically agree with parents opinions on politics or religion so long as I could frame my disagreement in a way that showed I had thought about the issue and did not descend to personal or generalised insults.

That said there were FIRM borderlines in my house growing up and certain things were unacceptable, staying out excessively late without permission was a big no-no. When I was older and went out with girls it was IMPRESSED very strongly on me that while it was fine to have girlfriends there were certain rules of ettiquette regarding the girl such as respecting her feelings and decisions.

Generalise comments regarding people of various religous or social groups was frowned on and my father would challenge me as to why I would think such a thing if I came out with a remark. This makes my next sentence sound hypocritical but many of the kids in the area of London I live in come from homes where they see their parents not working or behaving responsibly and they tend to emulate this behaviour as they lack any role models. Not true by any means of all or most kids even, he who shouts loudest attracts most attention and a few children behaving aggressively and been a nuisance tend to outweight the behavior of a large group of others as they make themselves more visible.

As to the 'we have nothing to do' line that is used sometimes to justify bad behaviour. I'm sorry growing up we had less to do, it is a poor excuse and parents need to impress on children they don't need to wait for something to do. If nothing else they have resources such as libraries, local parks etc. Or they can devote themselves to a hobby or interest. Too often we having nothing to do translates as we can't be bothered to find something to do. It is sympomatic of the modern world where a need to have distractions at all moment has been bred into us via media and tv advertising.

[Bilk]

Apr 23, 2008 5:38:23 GMT Blue Angel said:

Indeed and I think manners are an useful skill to have learnt as the form part of any cohesive social group if it is to last. I can relate to AFD's point about respect been a two way street as his points about been raised to use your own mind and challenge thinking if it seemed sloppy or ill-constructed is similar to my own childhood. This did not mean challenging for the sake of challenging which is an asinine and annoying thing to do, but I was not expected to automatically agree with parents opinions on politics or religion so long as I could frame my disagreement in a way that showed I had thought about the issue and did not descend to personal or generalised insults.

That said there were FIRM borderlines in my house growing up and certain things were unacceptable, staying out excessively late without permission was a big no-no. When I was older and went out with girls it was IMPRESSED very strongly on me that while it was fine to have girlfriends there were certain rules of ettiquette regarding the girl such as respecting her feelings and decisions.

Generalise comments regarding people of various religous or social groups was frowned on and my father would challenge me as to why I would think such a thing if I came out with a remark. This makes my next sentence sound hypocritical but many of the kids in the area of London I live in come from homes where they see their parents not working or behaving responsibly and they tend to emulate this behaviour as they lack any role models. Not true by any means of all or most kids even, he who shouts loudest attracts most attention and a few children behaving aggressively and been a nuisance tend to outweight the behavior of a large group of others as they make themselves more visible.

As to the 'we have nothing to do' line that is used sometimes to justify bad behaviour. I'm sorry growing up we had less to do, it is a poor excuse and parents need to impress on children they don't need to wait for something to do. If nothing else they have resources such as libraries, local parks etc. Or they can devote themselves to a hobby or interest. Too often we having nothing to do translates as we can't be bothered to find something to do. It is sympomatic of the modern world where a need to have distractions at all moment has been bred into us via media and tv advertising.

I agree totally with every word of this mate, there is no excuse for bad behaviour except for poor parenting. And by that I don't mean the new age parenting where we ignore our kids wrong doing. Your father was a very wise man mate, he and my mother were from the same mould, and the bit about having nothing to do is a joke. I and my mates played football with a rolled up newspaper tied with string. No one ever bought us a ball, if we wanted a ball we earned the money to buy one. Like one of our favourite ways of earning money was to go round to the grocers store. There we could get a wooden orange or onion box, we'd take it home chop it up into sticks which we tied up in bundles and sold them to our neighbours to light their fires. We got nothing for nothing, another lesson we learned in life. Todays kids would think we were crazy, they just go demand their parents buy it for them and they usually do. In wanting something as simple as a ball we were taught a lesson, you get nothing for nothing.

[Bilk]

As for respect and not understanding what it is, AFD is assuming I don't know the difference between respect and manners. Well in my view in many ways there is little difference. But in others respect is totally different and it is this. I can treat something with respect without doffing my cap or paying homage to it. For instance on another thread we discussed sport and the use of national anthems and flags. I show repect to another persons national anthem for no other reason than it is their national anthem. Today people don't even show respect for their own national anthem let alone someone elses. You may have reservations politically about a national anthem and or a flag. But it is entitled to respect. I dislike the tricoulour for instance, because it has become synonomous with a lot of the crap that has gone on in my country. I am sure their are many people who feel the same way about the union flag, or the Northern Ireland flag. But when I am in Dublin I treat the national anthem, and the flag with respect. because it is the flag and national anthem of the country I am in. I would not treat it with the same respect within the confines of Northern Ireland because of what I said above. If it were just good manners I would treat it with the same respect wherever I came across it.

[An Fear Dubh]

I do not think myself and Bilk are that far apart. I recognize Bilk that you understand the difference between manners and respect. But I think we need to be very careful that others reading our comments are not confused. At various small points you have put in the word 'respect' (which for myself has a wider meaning) but have spoken about 'polite behavior/manners' (which for myself are important but not does not have the same wider meaning). I think in the post where you talked about national flags and anthems, I would have similar views (although these are just emblems and my focus is people). But I would call that manners not respect, but of course it is a respect of sorts. But when we are having this discussion in a political context we need to highlight the difference.

On the 'plane adage' - I understood the adage as you presented it but I am unsure how that relates to what we were talking about. I used the point that evidence exists to show conclusively that some police break the law. And while I accept these police as a minority, it is still a fact. So given that a minority of citizens break the law, why do we have laws? I believe because we know that a determined minority will break the social code that we need laws on the whole of society. And that sometimes these laws infringe on the innocent. And therefore because we know that a minority of police will be 'over zealous' or simply break the boundaries of accepted behavior that we must put on the police laws to govern them. For me it boils down to - laws are to protect the innocent, sometimes the guilty manipulate such laws to avoid or lessen punishment. Should the innocent suffer because our laws are open to manipulation? In the end we have to make a choice which is more important to our society. And this goes back to the respect issue. If society selects that it is more important to punish the guilty, then we have dropped a lesson of respect from our societies values. If society selects that protection of the innocent minority is paramount to punishment of the guilty minority then we are installing a value of respect into our society and how we behave towards each other. And like LL's story of the class bully we might find that the guilty minority learn that lesson. But to learn a lesson we must teach it.

Like LL I can recount a few similar experiences, in how I have dealt with anti-social youths. And have been on occasions rewarded with a positive result/response. I will continue to give that same mutual respect even to those I feel are lost causes. Because once I stop or change direction I have lost and I have lowered myself to the low level they have been sucked into. That is not to say I am a pacifist but violence is never my first and only response to violent anti-social behavior.

I believe the reason why some parents stopped trying to instill the values of 'respect' onto their children is because those parents were brought up during the age where the media/tv had a greater impact on youth than their parents did. The icons of youth were no longer 'Silver Screen Movie Stars' (who's positions was never attainable) but ordinary people like George Best, Twiggy, Che, Elvis and Martin Luther King. And these people were 'rebels' of society. The reaction of the established society was attempt to crush these rebels by any means. Thus the lesson of respect was untaught.

I agree that respect is needed in our society but respect is a two way street. And simply smacking or violent punishment does not teach respect but fear. If you think you have gained respect from using violence, then you live in the dog kingdom of pack leadership and the 'alpha' dog, not in human society.

[Bilk]

I don't think we are that far apart, I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem we have (I think but am not sure) is that you want to try to unteach what has already been taught. Good luck in that, it is an almost impossible task. For instacne, and I'll use the island of Ireland again because it's something I know about, there are two distinct histories on this island, depending on your upbringing. They are poles apart, but each side believes the history they were taught. You will never get one side or orher to change from that. Except perhaps for a few, who realise that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
We need to forget this generation, it is lost to all it's experiences, thanks to the middle class dogooder socialists. The one exception in this is the children, they are still in the learing phase. And the stage at which this phase ends is becoming earlier and earlier unless someone puts the brakes on it. We cannot unteach what has already been taught. We need to teach the parents of today to go read some books, not the dogooder written books about how to raise a child. But books from the past, like those of Catherine Cookson, all about working class areas of Newcastle, and the respect those people had for each other. The Same applied to the working class communities in Belfast. Where a neighbour was not just the man/woman who lived up the street. She he was someone who should be treated with respect as a human being. They cared in those days for their neighbours, when someone had nothing the rest of the place would share what they had. Today they don't give you time to share what you have, they are intitled so they come and steal all you have because share of what you have is not enough.
I can remember my mother, God rest her soul, saying "I don't need social security, that's for the REALLY poor people". Today there are the work shy gits claiming social security and and also working (it's called "doing the double") and driving around in cars. People in my mothers day had more respect for themselves than that. Again that word respect. That has nothing to do with being rebelious. it is because people no longer have any shame.

[Blue Angel]

An example of my family history might serve to illustrate my mother and fathers approach to child rearing. When I was about 16 or so I happened to start been interested in music heavily. I remember watching Hendrix's performance at Monterey and I had not realised till then that left-handers could play guitar (having had a very conservative school music teacher who would not take me as pupil due to been left-handed ) so I had some cash saved from pocket money and also my mum used to give me a pound each day for lunch at school. I used to not eat sometimes to keep the cash or just buy one or two pieces of fruit. As a result I had enough to buy a cheap acoustic around the place. One trip to Argos later and the requisite crap acoustic that so many kids have learned on was with me. Although in my case even more unplayabe than usual as i had to make it left-handed and been totally ignorant of things like action or string height i made a balls of it that i could only see retrospectively.At first my dad who has a dddddddddddry sense of humor used to take the piss out my fumbling attempts but he soon realised I was deeply interested in learning. After about six months and practising every day for hours on end I had begun to realise the acoustic guitar is a lovely instrument but you can't really do some things on it that you can on the electric guitar (and vice versa of course) and I had started looking at electric guitars in our local music shop. The two brothers who still run it are quite friendly and were happy to let a teenager practise for hours in there if he behaved himself. It was coming up to my birthday and mum and dad asked what I would like and eventualyl I got the courage to say an electric guitar and amp (I knew mum and dad didn't really have the cash for it then due to family issues so I didn't want to make them feel bad). Dad and mum stopped short of saying no as they could see it wasn't a five minute wonder for me. But the solution was this I had to contribute half the cost and it would be bought LATER than my birthday maybe a month or two later. That meant me doing odds jobs for the local news agents, saving my pocket and school dinner money (I actually eat no school dinners for a month at this point) and finally after 6 weeks getting 90 pounds together. The point of the long rambling story been that as in bilks example there was a culture been taught where nothing was had for nothing. I have been through a lot of guitars since that point but I still have that guitar (although it isn't very playable nowadays) stored away safely as it has huge sentimental value as I didn't know then that it would be the last birthday present I'd get from both parents.

My story also illustrates this whole 'nothing to do' idea is self-involved - all the kids i see on the bus have mobile phones, most of them have ipods and psps unless their families are really hard up. The sad truth is that many of them have not learn that something to do often involves a commitment. You want to be good at football then you have to go kick a football about and play with a team. You want to be a good artist then no matter how much natural talent you have you have to put the work in.

[Bilk]

Beautiful story mate, and it illustrates beautifully what I was trying to say, only better ;D

[Blue Angel]

I don't know it's not just older people - my colleague at work is Bulgarian and is only 23 and he says if the kids behaved like they did here back home they wouldn't know what had fell on them when their parents got to hear of it. Having met his sister and niece i can see what he means. His niece is an incredibly well behaved little girl - her family all love her very much but they have given her rules and put structures into place so she learns growing up that tricks like throwing tantrums won't get you your own way. Compare that to the people i see with kids here - a memory of a woman attempting to use discipline in the form of a hefty smack in the head of a kid while shouting f*** you you little c*** and attempting to pass child abuse of as discipline is one memory that sticks vividly in my brain. The other version is no rules at all let the kids run around, fall over when shopping throw the whole store about, throw their ice-creams on the ground or the windows. These are not isolated incidents either. There really is a break down of family structures in parts of the UK and kids lack role models or people who they can rely on for consistency and support.

[An Fear Dubh]

The heading for this thread is; 'Our kids and how they behave'.

Once we have all agreed that our kids are behaving in a way which is not beneficial to society (which I think we all have). Then we must analyze to see what are the causes of this and then look to see how we can change things that will make our kids develop into 'respected' members of the community.

For me the cause is the system of how we govern our society. Our system is capitalism, and the governing/driving force of capitalism is greed/profit above all else. I am always about over-throwing capitalism. But I am a realist also and recognize such an overthrow may never happen in the pure 'Marxist' context. Marxism is out of date and dead. But the tools that Marx used never go out of use and I have used those tools here. As a realist I deal with what we have today and how opportunities can be developed into small but meaningful changes that might like rust grow over that strong metal iron of capitalism and weaken it to a point that capitalism is unrecognizable.

My interpretation of what Bilk and LL have said is that they attribute a lack of 'respect' as the main cause. And they wish to unteach what the past couple of generations have been taught by the developing society of capitalism (greed/profit). And reteach 'respect' from a past society. A past society that holds no memories for the kids of today as they never lived in those times. We must deal in the present and in what has meaning for the kids today. I can see the merit in teaching 'respect' and agree whole heartedly with the sentiment. But I see this analysis as flawed because it does not recognize the true cause of why our kids behave like they do today. As I see a lack of 'respect' as a symptom not a cause.

In limited terms I agree that our best hope is in our children. But tomorrows adults (our children) may not have the opportunity to begin afresh. With the accommodation we have reached here in the north the opportunity presents itself to put into place systems and accepted ways of governing our society that put different values on things other than profit. So while I agree that the majority are lost to their past. We need them to embrace the new structures or they will never be put into place and we will always say our hope is in the next generation of children a sort of 'chicken and egg' problem. Because while our children must learn different ways of governing society we must set the curriculum.

In West Belfast there is a knee-jerk reaction to some violent anti-social linked murders. We have the possibility of getting the control of policing and justice powers into the hands of local politicians. Who in my opinion are inept. But Gerry Adams has been asked directly by the local people what are YOU (Gerry) going to do? He has tried to deflect this criticism onto the police. And in the past that may have been justifiable but in the real world it must be understood that like the community of West Belfast the police are also trying to adjust to the new way of things. And while various government bodies do have a part to play, they are but tools. The plan of how we develop needs to come from politicians, but Gerry has demonstrated he has not got a plan (nor has anyone else). So we the local people need to see beyond the knee-jerk reaction and identify clearly the causes of the present not yearn for the 'good old days' which do not translate into the society that exists in Ireland today.

[An Fear Dubh]

What I thought was interesting about the quotes from Paddy Ashdown on his interim report was this quote.

“We now have perhaps a unique opportunity to establish new procedures and structures based on the principles of respect and tolerance and to reform ……..and to reconnect responsibility for difficult social issues with locally elected political institutions and leadership”

Now I know Paddy is talking about Parades, but I think if we look carefully we can apply the same assumption to other issues.

For those that are interested in talking about Ashdown’s interim report I have linked a BBC news item on it. So as to avoid the discussion here being deflected away from how our kids behave.

Also for those interested here is the section I skipped out with the dots from that quote - [“the regulations of parading“].

It also highlights for me how issues like the ‘Parades issue’ and how our society has dealt with them. Has taught our kids not to have respect or to show tolerance. So how can any of us say that it is the fault of the kids because they do not show ‘respect, when our age do not show respect or tolerance. And how can we hope to teach future (young) kids this new and enlightened ‘respect’ when we still cling to the old ways of resolving disputes. We can even look at Trade Union disputes (The Miners Strike in England as a stark example). And look at how society divided and split and the way central government policed such issues. Surely central government should have been teaching the lesson of ‘respect’ and tolerance. Rather than being the central instrument of confrontation and intransigence.

So we can not ignore everyone and cast them aside as lost causes and say that only the kids are important as they are the future. Because we need everyone to move together and in tandem, for the lessons to be of effect.