|
Post by Rorschach on Nov 17, 2009 4:53:06 GMT -5
Adolescents are not young adults. They're teenagers that act like kids, so they should be treated like kids. Young adults are adults who are young. Schools never, ever have the authority to teach right and wrong. It's always the parents' responsibility, and if the parents fail, that's their fault. Their interest is keeping order while trying to educate an ever-increasingly coddled and immature group of children. Keeping order requires one of two things: respect for the rules, which these kids didn't have, or fear of consequences. Respect only comes with understanding, and how many teenagers do you know that give a crap about anything that isn't completely self-serving? Teenagers are not mature enough to follow rules without there being fear of consequence, and parents today are too unwilling to discipline their children effectively. As a psychological term, yes, "young adult" refers to people who (in the US) can legally drink but not become a member of AARP. But "young adult" as used popularly means people age 14-21, more or less equivalent to "youth," "adolescent," or "teenager." The cutoff between adolescence and adulthood in society is an arbitrary cutoff, and such legal loopholes as emancipated minor status admit as such. Unless society were to operate wholly on a case by case basis (which, by definition, would eliminate society), there needs to be an arbitrary cutoff. Right and wrong isn't something that is taught for 40 minutes in the car between karate and piano. It is simply learned. An individual at fifteen (barring severe retardation or mental illness) is certainly capable of understanding the consequences of one's actions. Whether that capability is as strong or deep as that of an older person with, presumably, more real world experience on which to draw is debatable (again, case by case). You and I obviously come from different backgrounds. I don't wish to enter an argument based on a difference I perceive to be rooted in the conflict between respect for authority on one hand and respect for inquiry on the other. The first outlook is interested in the story, the second in the backstory; the former in the paper and ink, the latter in the author. The two outlooks aren't mutually exclusive, but rather preference one aspect more highly than the other. My junior high and high school reading lists included The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, Slaughterhouse-5, Fahrenheit 451, Dandelion Wine, Alas Babylon, Frankenstein, Shelly's "Ozymandias," Of Mice and Men, Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man [not a sci-fi novel], Native Son, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Treblinka, Night, Inherit the Wind, Acts...all of those works and so many others were more than exposure to great literature. They, in retrospect, had the effect of teaching (those of) us (who read them and came from homes where critical thinking was valued) about maturity, right and wrong, and developing a macro- and micro- world view. The reason the teenagers who say "meep" lack respect for the rules of the institution is found partly at home, partly in the natural silliness humans tend to find in the mundane. First, numerous studies have shown that children whose families read, value reading, and have books in the home perform better in school than children of homes full of interactive gadgetry. Why? Because respect for learning and patience for a slow-building process are absorbed. You don't just put a pile of books in front of a toddler and get a genius by osmosis. Nor can teachers babysit the children of parents who actively see teachers as babysitters. A home that respects learning fosters a respect for the authority figures in a place of learning; a home that fosters respect for authority itself fails to provide the respect for the purpose of an education, that is rational inquiry. In regards to natural silliness, a "meep" is a social yawn. School, generally, is boring for many students: some aren't challenged by the work, others have no interest, still others have given up, and still more are tired, hungry, stressed out, or perhaps justifiably bored by a weak teacher. In isolation, a "meep" is no different than stretching one's legs, cracking one's knuckles, checking one's email, or any other momentary break of monotony. The issue comes with its overuse and development into a fad. To claim that teenagers are specifically capable of total and complete self-absorption is absurd and doesn't merit response. A newborn infant is self-absorbed, in that it has no concept of "self/other," but rather a set of biological needs. Any being that does literally anything more than eat, s***, and rest in between is not totally self absorbed. Self-discipline is necessary. Parents who coddle their children, yes, are poorly preparing them to engage in self-discipline. But parents who take the opposite route and skip teaching outright and proceed to instilling the fear of consequences of defying authority (whether or not the child knows that the action has an actual consequence, vis a vis a toddler playing with a knob on the stove knot knowing that igniting a flame, burning something, and dying is possible) are just as accountable for a society many see as deteriorating. Whatever the background of the meeping teens, it is absolutely relevant to consider the nature of the rule and consequence. A punishment that is unfair is an unfair punishment. Too bad. But a punishment that is unjust - one that does not fit the nature of the offense, is specifically against the spirit of Western (American, at least) notions of propriety. Very well put and I agree with a lot of it.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Nov 17, 2009 7:46:11 GMT -5
Adolescents are not young adults. They're teenagers that act like kids, so they should be treated like kids. Young adults are adults who are young. Schools never, ever have the authority to teach right and wrong. It's always the parents' responsibility, and if the parents fail, that's their fault. Their interest is keeping order while trying to educate an ever-increasingly coddled and immature group of children. Keeping order requires one of two things: respect for the rules, which these kids didn't have, or fear of consequences. Respect only comes with understanding, and how many teenagers do you know that give a crap about anything that isn't completely self-serving? Teenagers are not mature enough to follow rules without there being fear of consequence, and parents today are too unwilling to discipline their children effectively. As a psychological term, yes, "young adult" refers to people who (in the US) can legally drink but not become a member of AARP. But "young adult" as used popularly means people age 14-21, more or less equivalent to "youth," "adolescent," or "teenager." The cutoff between adolescence and adulthood in society is an arbitrary cutoff, and such legal loopholes as emancipated minor status admit as such. Unless society were to operate wholly on a case by case basis (which, by definition, would eliminate society), there needs to be an arbitrary cutoff. I don't care what it's popularly used as. They call kids from the ages of about 9 to about 13 "tweens", but you and I both know that that word was invented as a marketing term to create a new demographic to sell things to kids...same as "young adult". Being an adult is something you learn how to be, and teenagers today have no grasp of this. Hell, most people in their early 20s don't grasp this. No, it's not debatable. Obviously, someone with more real world experience will have way more ability to understand that actions have consequences. And what's with this crap about karate and piano? I never said anything remotely close to that. And here's the funny part. You say this: ...and then you try to bait me into an argument with this... I read most of those books, too. If those books are what it took for you to learn maturity, right and wrong, etc., then I don't know what your parents were doing, because that's their job. Fact is, those books are works of fiction, and if you want to formulate your world view based upon what those authors think, that's your business. But that's not the way I did it. More or less agree with the first part, but the second part, if you read the article, the kids were targeting one teacher and disrupting his class. That's not a "social yawn". That's just jackassery. I've never met a teenager that hasn't had only their own self interest in mind, myself included. And I've worked with, managed, and known a whole lot of them. That's one of those things that you stop doing as you learn to become an adult. You think for some reason that there's only the two opposite ends of the spectrum? I never said that. And I don't consider this an unjust punishment, because the word was being used to disrupt a teacher's class, a warning was sent out about it listing the specific punishment for it, and it was carried out as prescribed.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Nov 17, 2009 10:06:47 GMT -5
Do something distracting in school, and you'll eventually be asked to stop. Keep doing it, and you'll be threatened with punishment. Continue further, and said punishment goes into effect. Seems basic enough to me. You should be punishing the students for being disruptive, not banning an asinine word. If anything, banning the word will make the kids say it more. Also, I feel that meep should be the filter around here from now on. Banning the word serves as the warning, allows the parents to know what's going on in order to elicit their support (which the report indicates that the school has), and then provides an in-the-books reason for the punishment (ie, the breaking of a set rule). Hell, the reason to put any restriction in rule form is to give lee-way for punishment once that restriction has been infringed. If they didn't, you can believe they'd have a mess on their hands, with people complaining that the word wasn't against the rules and thus the school shouldn't be allowed to punish those who say it. Now, it is against the rules, both the students and the parents know it, and the school's ass is covered for when they punish a student for breaking that rule. As is, people can complain about the rule being stupid, but no one can say that the school didn't give fair warning.
|
|
|
Post by YellowJacketY2J on Nov 17, 2009 10:33:48 GMT -5
You should be punishing the students for being disruptive, not banning an asinine word. If anything, banning the word will make the kids say it more. Also, I feel that meep should be the filter around here from now on. Banning the word serves as the warning, allows the parents to know what's going on in order to elicit their support (which the report indicates that the school has), and then provides an in-the-books reason for the punishment (ie, the breaking of a set rule). Hell, the reason to put any restriction in rule form is to give lee-way for punishment once that restriction has been infringed. If they didn't, you can believe they'd have a mess on their hands, with people complaining that the word wasn't against the rules and thus the school shouldn't be allowed to punish those who say it. Now, it is against the rules, both the students and the parents know it, and the school's ass is covered for when they punish a student for breaking that rule. As is, people can complain about the rule being stupid, but no one can say that the school didn't give fair warning. Though I see your point, I just don't feel that the teenagers would have an argument over the word not being banned despite being trialed for a noise disturbance. I don't know the process of banning words in schools, but my guess is it takes awhile. Instead of focusing on banning a nonsense word, they should be focusing on their next lessons to teach our children, the whole reason they're in school to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Nov 17, 2009 10:49:49 GMT -5
"Meeping"?
The first thing that came to my mind were the anchovies from Spongebob Squarepants.
|
|
H-Fist
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,485
|
Post by H-Fist on Nov 17, 2009 15:57:30 GMT -5
I don't care what it's popularly used as. They call kids from the ages of about 9 to about 13 "tweens", but you and I both know that that word was invented as a marketing term to create a new demographic to sell things to kids...same as "young adult". Being an adult is something you learn how to be, and teenagers today have no grasp of this. Hell, most people in their early 20s don't grasp this. So this is a semantic difference, for the most part. We agree that teens are people with physiology resembling adults who are still works in progress in terms of learning how to be full-fledged adults in our society, specifically. First part: it is debatable whether a well-educated, well-parented, intelligent, world-aware teen (like a high school classmate who graduated early to proceed on her path to med school so she could move back to Viet Nam to help her parents' country) is more capable of this than a white-collar criminal in his 50s. Second: karate/piano was simply a reference to the notion that parents/guardians have the singular responsibility to do something, as if it were a specific part of daily life. I am of the opinion that one's capacity to learn is greater than one's capacity to be taught. I wrote metaphorically, but apparently that was not clear to you. There was no baiting involved. You just missed the point. I'll remain on books specifically, though the argument certainly expands into the arts, history, philosophy, etc. It doesn't matter whether or not you or I have read a specific book on my list or any other. What matters is how one approaches a given text. One approach (which you clearly define in the following paragraph of your post) is to treat the book as a fixed and static object. A second approach considers the text as dynamic and interactive. Any given book has a different meaning to anyone who reads it. I doubt you would argue that point. However, to those people whose worldview is predicated on the importance of inquiry and discovery rather than structure or authority, there is a different access to a text that allows the reader to engage it on multiple and deeper levels of internal debate and consideration. One can approach the text on an even playing field rather than observing it on a pedestal. This paragraph strikes me as an attack, not an argument. I would merely point out that my parents saw and still see their parental role as providers, protectors, educators, and leaders. But they also view as equally important the long-term development of the child into a responsible and independent person. Certain examples of this, in which you might be interested, are better kept to private messages if you are so inclined. I read the article. The necessary point I hoped to make was that fighting symptoms typically fails to cure the disease. Read the following report: wbztv.com/local/meep.banned.danvers.2.1307139.htmlThere is no mention anywhere I can find of the students threatening a teacher in a specific way. If they have been targeting him with the yelled word outside his classroom as a joke-turned-taunt, then we see that the issue is the taunting or harassment, not the word itself. According to the principal himself, the word is not the problem; the behavior is. Yet his administration bans the word, tells parents in a manner reminiscent of a public health issue such that they are clueless about what is going on (enter Ms. Morrissey), and involves police not only in the students' use of the word, but also in any correspondence his school receives in regards to the controversy. Have the kids allowed the "jackassery" to go too far? Yes. I'm not arguing otherwise. But the issue at the heart of all of this is the approach the administration took, which by any logical and critical analysis is even more absurd and disrupting than any "meep"ing these students would continue to do. Apparently, the principal claims that there was a Facebook-based effort to create a flash mob-style fad of using it, but that appears to have been a response to the ban, as opposed to reason for it. NPR actually interviewed a student so that an actually journalistic story could be written, as opposed to a fluff piece: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120422662So the ban is not a big issue because the students take neither the word nor the ban very seriously. Furthermore, the meeping primarily became a big problem AFTER the school administration made it into a big deal. They had been using meep in conversation to avoid using swear words and, it appears, as a synonym for "Move out of the way; I need to get into that room." Again, the issue is deeper than a nonsense word's use. There is no reported major problem (class clowns joking versus a mass response of previously uninvolved students creating a greater disruption) until the administration decided to Use Discipline And Fear Of Punishment. Even more so now that I have found some newer reports am I confident that the ban was absurd and idiotic. It further alienated dozens if not hundreds of students from the teachers and administrators. Students who had nothing to do with the issue became involved when the administration decided to make a nonsense word into public enemy #1. This is a patently absurd statement. A 40-year-old woman in an SUV who runs over a motorcyclist stopped at a red light because she was too busy applying makeup in the mirror to watch the road is more self-absorbed than a 16-year-old who volunteers at a local food pantry or soup kitchen. A kid who quits the baseball team to take an after-school job to help his mom make rent is less self-interested than a business executive milking consumers for their last dimes. Adults have just as great a capacity for self-absorption as adolescents. I can't take your statement here seriously any more than I would the trope of "I walked, barefoot in three foot of snow, five miles to school, up-hill both ways." I don't believe in two extremes, either. I didn't write that. I wrote of two specific extremes in hopes of encompassing all that lies between. You and I have differing views on justice that are obviously rooted in our worldviews. There is no way to debate this further in a thread on the forum without delving into philosophical theory that necessarily invokes politics (and possibly religion).
|
|
default
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Blames Everything On Snitsky. Yes, Even THAT.
Posts: 17,056
|
Post by default on Nov 17, 2009 16:06:13 GMT -5
This is just further proof to the fact that the vocal minority controls the majority.
Complaining/feeling threatened is the new equivalent of the 80's/90's lawsuit. I'm offended by quite a few stupid things, but I don't go around complaining or saying I feel threatened by them... I just move on.
Also, please don't read this as political, it's purely philosophical.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Nov 17, 2009 16:58:45 GMT -5
I don't believe in two extremes, either. I didn't write that. I wrote of two specific extremes in hopes of encompassing all that lies between. Actually, what you did, and have been doing, is a fairly common debate tactic of bringing up extreme exception after extreme exception and presenting them as the norm in an attempt to counter what I've been saying. The problem with that tactic is that the extreme exceptions do not disprove the rule, especially when they're hypothetical. They just stand out as extreme exceptions that are so rare that they aren't worth accounting for. So you and I have different world views. Pretty darn apparent. I take it we're agreeing to disagree at this point?
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,516
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Nov 17, 2009 17:31:44 GMT -5
Adolescents are not young adults. They're teenagers that act like kids, so they should be treated like kids. Young adults are adults who are young. Schools never, ever have the authority to teach right and wrong. It's always the parents' responsibility, and if the parents fail, that's their fault. Their interest is keeping order while trying to educate an ever-increasingly coddled and immature group of children. Keeping order requires one of two things: respect for the rules, which these kids didn't have, or fear of consequences. Respect only comes with understanding, and how many teenagers do you know that give a crap about anything that isn't completely self-serving? Teenagers are not mature enough to follow rules without there being fear of consequence, and parents today are too unwilling to discipline their children effectively. As a psychological term, yes, "young adult" refers to people who (in the US) can legally drink but not become a member of AARP. But "young adult" as used popularly means people age 14-21, more or less equivalent to "youth," "adolescent," or "teenager." The cutoff between adolescence and adulthood in society is an arbitrary cutoff, and such legal loopholes as emancipated minor status admit as such. Unless society were to operate wholly on a case by case basis (which, by definition, would eliminate society), there needs to be an arbitrary cutoff. Right and wrong isn't something that is taught for 40 minutes in the car between karate and piano. It is simply learned. An individual at fifteen (barring severe retardation or mental illness) is certainly capable of understanding the consequences of one's actions. Whether that capability is as strong or deep as that of an older person with, presumably, more real world experience on which to draw is debatable (again, case by case). You and I obviously come from different backgrounds. I don't wish to enter an argument based on a difference I perceive to be rooted in the conflict between respect for authority on one hand and respect for inquiry on the other. The first outlook is interested in the story, the second in the backstory; the former in the paper and ink, the latter in the author. The two outlooks aren't mutually exclusive, but rather preference one aspect more highly than the other. My junior high and high school reading lists included The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, Slaughterhouse-5, Fahrenheit 451, Dandelion Wine, Alas Babylon, Frankenstein, Shelly's "Ozymandias," Of Mice and Men, Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man [not a sci-fi novel], Native Son, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Treblinka, Night, Inherit the Wind, Acts...all of those works and so many others were more than exposure to great literature. They, in retrospect, had the effect of teaching (those of) us (who read them and came from homes where critical thinking was valued) about maturity, right and wrong, and developing a macro- and micro- world view. The reason the teenagers who say "meep" lack respect for the rules of the institution is found partly at home, partly in the natural silliness humans tend to find in the mundane. First, numerous studies have shown that children whose families read, value reading, and have books in the home perform better in school than children of homes full of interactive gadgetry. Why? Because respect for learning and patience for a slow-building process are absorbed. You don't just put a pile of books in front of a toddler and get a genius by osmosis. Nor can teachers babysit the children of parents who actively see teachers as babysitters. A home that respects learning fosters a respect for the authority figures in a place of learning; a home that fosters respect for authority itself fails to provide the respect for the purpose of an education, that is rational inquiry. In regards to natural silliness, a "meep" is a social yawn. School, generally, is boring for many students: some aren't challenged by the work, others have no interest, still others have given up, and still more are tired, hungry, stressed out, or perhaps justifiably bored by a weak teacher. In isolation, a "meep" is no different than stretching one's legs, cracking one's knuckles, checking one's email, or any other momentary break of monotony. The issue comes with its overuse and development into a fad. To claim that teenagers are specifically capable of total and complete self-absorption is absurd and doesn't merit response. A newborn infant is self-absorbed, in that it has no concept of "self/other," but rather a set of biological needs. Any being that does literally anything more than eat, s***, and rest in between is not totally self absorbed. Self-discipline is necessary. Parents who coddle their children, yes, are poorly preparing them to engage in self-discipline. But parents who take the opposite route and skip teaching outright and proceed to instilling the fear of consequences of defying authority (whether or not the child knows that the action has an actual consequence, vis a vis a toddler playing with a knob on the stove knot knowing that igniting a flame, burning something, and dying is possible) are just as accountable for a society many see as deteriorating. Whatever the background of the meeping teens, it is absolutely relevant to consider the nature of the rule and consequence. A punishment that is unfair is an unfair punishment. Too bad. But a punishment that is unjust - one that does not fit the nature of the offense, is specifically against the spirit of Western (American, at least) notions of propriety. Cool, another person who read "Alas, Babylon" in high school. Never read the other books, though I also read Mila 18, Exodus, Black Like Me, Animal Farm, 1984, and a few others that required a certain level of maturity to fully appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 17, 2009 18:18:48 GMT -5
Banning the word serves as the warning, allows the parents to know what's going on in order to elicit their support (which the report indicates that the school has), and then provides an in-the-books reason for the punishment (ie, the breaking of a set rule). Hell, the reason to put any restriction in rule form is to give lee-way for punishment once that restriction has been infringed. If they didn't, you can believe they'd have a mess on their hands, with people complaining that the word wasn't against the rules and thus the school shouldn't be allowed to punish those who say it. Now, it is against the rules, both the students and the parents know it, and the school's ass is covered for when they punish a student for breaking that rule. As is, people can complain about the rule being stupid, but no one can say that the school didn't give fair warning. Though I see your point, I just don't feel that the teenagers would have an argument over the word not being banned despite being trialed for a noise disturbance. I don't know the process of banning words in schools, but my guess is it takes awhile. Instead of focusing on banning a nonsense word, they should be focusing on their next lessons to teach our children, the whole reason they're in school to begin with. Actually, given the horrific nature of parenting in many places these days, schools and teachers are expected to be educators to only a certain degree; more than that, we're now expected to act as parents. Find me a school that focuses only on teaching lessons, and I'll show you a school that gets endless complaints about kids not getting "character education" (which is all the rage now), about not doing enough to enforce discipline, etc. HUGE numbers of students have almost no home life these days, and they're basically being raised in the school they attend.
|
|