6
   

should we focus on vandalism more than other crimes and why

 
 
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2013 04:11 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Lot more to successful life, Vik, than the mere desire. Every so often we read of a famous, successful, highly regarded individual making a fool of himself or involved in a murder, etc
ah that's right...but we were talking education were we not.

It's easy enough to remove a statement from context and turn it into a subject about something else...but that just leads to a subjectless debate.

Quote:
Indubitable Vik. My generalization entails public education where yours depends upon upgrading the parent, seemingly contradictory in view of his abject failure so far. So how do you propose to go about it
Please be more specific. This quote by itself is misleading. Your generalisation entails public education about life...being done in the schools, on top of core education.

My generalisation is not about 'upgrading parents'. This too is misleading. It is about parents taking responsibility for parenting.

You talk about the abject failure of parents, and ignore the historical evidence to the contrary. It is only in the last 40 years that respect that degraded significantly, and at an ever rapidly increasing rate of degradation...that ever increasing degradation of respect also coincides with people passing the buck more & more to the State. It is also with this passing to the State, that people have become more self centred...while at the same time taking less and less responsibility... (mind you, the govt has actively encouraged this self centredness)

...my view is that we should cease this ever more destructive buck passing, and that responsibility for our decisions, and for how we raise our children...should fall back onto us...not the State.

From another angle :

Communism was a great idea - no poor people, everyone valued equally, and the wealth shared among the masses. Unfortunately it had one major failure...people no longer had the desire to work harder, to learn, to better themselves.

Equally...if the State takes over the role of parenting...parents no longer have the desire to better their parenting skills. Parenting skills then become worse & worse as the generations continue.

So my view isn't about 'upgrading' parents. It's about arresting the ever growing slide in parenting skills...which will continue to degrade under buck passing to the state schemes.

Quote:
Dunno Vik, you're well ahead of me addressing such detail. Some special sort of teach might be needed, one trained especially in the minors' psycho
Not really...I just think ahead to how something would get implemented, the costs, and the results.

Quote:
My ap;loogies Vik but that sounds like some sort of foregone conclusion. I am supposing "my system" might require years to perfect
Again, no need to apologise. The thing here though - based on your criteria...it's not possible to perfect...each child will be different, and 'perfecting' would suggest a set 'method' in a set time frame would get a set result. It won't.

That said - school psychologists are one thing I am quite in favour of (if the govt can afford them). They help teachers. They help students (usually the student will want help, and even if they are sent by a teacher, the psychologist is usually knowledgable enough to navigate the minefields)...and usually such doesn't detriment from school work, or parenting.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2013 05:13 pm
@vikorr,
I'm sure Vik besides political we have semantic issues

Quote:
That said - school psychologists are one thing I am quite in favour of (if the govt can afford them)


But isn't a school psychologist an Agent of the State

Quote:
...psychologist is usually knowledgable enough to navigate the minefields)...and usually such doesn't detriment from school work, or parenting.
My plot might also entail psychs just as you suggest but they'd have special training geared not only to the individual kid but to the teachers, showing how teaching methods methods might be improved to give kids a better grasp of the Whole Shebang. What sort of special training you ask

Dunno, it's a deep q. Maybe with emphasis on emotional interplay, politics, philosophy, aesthetic, religion

https://www.google.ca/#q=emotion%2C+politics%2C+philosophy%2C+religion+etc+in+everyday+life

Quote:
My generalisation is not about 'upgrading parents'. This too is misleading. It is about parents taking responsibility for parenting
By "upgrading a parent" I mean to make parent (1) first learn exactly what's needed then (2) assume that responsibility. So how do we do this

I often regret getting into lengthy coms like this one because the longer they drag on the less information is exchanged

Thanks for the chat but please don't feel obliged to respond
vikorr
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 Dec, 2013 10:56 pm
@dalehileman,
Dal,

My main objections to 'life' subjects at school is :

1. It's moving parents responsibility for parenting to schools
2. It takes away time from core subjects.

(within those two things is a whole lot of other reasoning)

A psychologist doesn't do either of these as (respectively):

1. psychologists are sought by even good parents, when things go wrong beyond the ability of the vast majority of parents. Such a service wouldn't replace parenting responsibility.
1a. The teachers can seek advice from them; and

2. they wouldn't be part of the curriculum. Ie. they aren't impacting on core subjects.

Quote:
By "upgrading a parent" I mean to make parent (1) first learn exactly what's needed then (2) assume that responsibility. So how do we do this
Make? How do you 'make' someone do something?

You can only motivate them to learn...but even if you can't figure out how to do that...the worst path is demotivating them to learn. When you do this : more in this generation lose the interest to parent their child on life skills, and those children don't, and as they grow more in their generation lose the ability...and so on.

By 'taking over parenting'...generations down the track, very, very few will have the skills anymore...again, it's the same reason communism failed, but took a few generations to show the failure...a beautiful idea that demotivated anyone from bettering themselves
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Dec, 2013 01:03 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
By "upgrading a parent" I mean to make parent (1) first learn exactly what's needed then (2) assume that responsibility.
Quote:
So how do we do this
Make? How do you 'make' someone do something?
Okay Vik, so "encourage"

Quote:
A psychologist doesn't do either of these
I seem to recall suggesting somewhere above that it would have to be a very special (new?) breed of psych

Quote:
...they wouldn't be part of the curriculum. Ie. they aren't impacting on core subjects.
I vaguely remember commenting above that their effect upon classtime might be minimized by their enhancement of everyday teaching technique through contact with the core teachers. I'd hope doing so world have little or no effect upon core subject

Quote:
You can only motivate them to learn...but even if you can't figure out how to do that...
I presume Vik you mean the parents, and indeed I can't

Quote:
...the worst path is demotivating them to learn.
I presume you mean by the "State" assuming this responsibility. I have no reason to think such a move would have any effect whatever upon the parent, especially one totally in the dark about life ed issues. Eg, schools teach kids to drive but I don't hear much objection from their folks

Anyhow you haven't explained how hiring psychs isn't a form of State Takeover. Yet I'd agree parts of the Establishment might object to certain subjects: eg sex, pol, relig, important to life's successful nav and that's one reason it'll never happen. As I vaguely remember asserting somewhere previous, the Establishment, esp The Right, can't distinguish teaching about something from advocating it

Evidently vik there isn't much further hope for me in these regards so please don't feel obliged, as I said above, to further enlighten me, I will understand, and thank you again for your dogged endurance
vikorr
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Dec, 2013 01:25 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
I presume you mean by the "State" assuming this responsibility. I have no reason to think such a move would have any effect whatever upon the parent, especially one totally in the dark about life ed issues.
And ones that aren't in the dark about life issues?

You would then have the ones totally in the dark (A) + the ones who know but now think the State can teach it instead(B)....their children grow up not ever having been taught such by their parent/s...those children now how less examples on how to parent from the most important role models on parenting and life that they will ever have (their parents)....so the next generation now has (A) + (B) who have less clue...and as the State assumes further responsibility in the next generation (after A +B), it will then have (A) + (B) + (C)...and so on. And generation by generation, parenting skills get worse and worse, as does the childrens knowledge about life, and even their ability to learn (as a generalisation disruptive children / children with an anti-learning attitude...will come from families with very poor parenting skills)

So it is not the ones who don't have a clue that it can be demotivating to - it's the ones that do have a clue but accept the passing of responsibility to the State.

Quote:
Anyhow you haven't explained how hiring psychs isn't a form of State Takeover
Takeover of responsibility? Yes, I in fact did. If you disagree with the reasoning, perhaps you'd like to point out what specifically you disagree with.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 13 Dec, 2013 01:53 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
I presume you mean by the "State" assuming this responsibility. I have no reason to think such a move would have any effect whatever upon the parent, especially one totally in the dark about life ed issues.
Quote:
And ones that aren't in the dark about life issues?
Depends. You have to forgive me for editing during your response but I'm one of those plagued by afterthoughts. All depends on what you mean by "in the dark." A parent so tied to specific credo, however enlightened about the opposition, might indeed object vigorously

Quote:
So it is not the ones who don't have a clue that it can be demotivating to - it's the ones that do have a clue but accept the passing of responsibility to the State.
One could write a book expanding upon this very point. I myself would suppose the responsible parent might welcome such input as possible adjunct

Fellas we need some input from the restayuh
0 Replies
 
danford
  Selected Answer
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:16 am
@josh1414,
Josh1414, Honestly I strongly believe vandalism and gun crime don’t have any connection what so ever! Vandalism does not generally kill people yet the use of guns do, firearms kill as many as 1,000 people a day and 75% of guns are owned by civilians, so I feel we should focus on gun control much more then vandalism. Vandalism may affect lives of those who commit it and who are on the receiving end but gun control and gun crime outnumbers those statistics hugely and to say that vandalism scares people maybe, but to know that you are walking past civilians on the streets who are carrying a loaded firearm and that doesn’t scare you? And to ask if we should “focus” on one is unreasonable because gun crime and vandalism are very different issues, I wouldn’t say vandalism should be focused on more but I’m not saying vandalism is not important because it is and it does affect lives but I feel not as much as firearms do. To conclude my argument what would you be more concerned about?
- Your local bus stop smashed up
- Or your local bus stop being a scenic background to a violent shooting.
josh1414
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:17 am
@danford,
Danford I disagree because I personally believe that vandalism is an important matter because, vandalism doesn’t just effect our local area it will have a domino effect because this will make our towns and streets more unattractive, and also the younger generation who vandalize In schools, 52% of comprehensive schools and 47% of primary schools reported incidents of vandalism during the 1996-1997 school years. So danford I disagree with your statement because, you don’t really understand the crime in witch is vandalism, instead you are more focused on gun crimes. I believe that gun crime is not that much of a problem to our society than vandalism and the vandals themselves, because gun crime doesn’t happen as merely as much as vandalism as a whole in Britain so why should the govement waste money and time towards pressuring it. On the other hand vandalism can cost Britain a lot because it makes areas more unattractive and may make less tourism to Britain therefor less of an income, which can be spent on making our emergency services better and more reliable. To conclude my post I believe that vandalism should be focused on more than some other crimes such as gun crime because vandalism can affect us mentally and physically in some circumstances do you agree with me danford. P.s I didn’t say vandalism and gun crime were linked, and I am also talking about the UK, but you do make a fair point dan.
danford
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:36 am
@josh1414,
you never specified that your argument was based for the United Kingdom
josh1414
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:39 am
@danford,
i did throughout my post i said britian
danford
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:42 am
@josh1414,
your post was after mine so i had no idea....
0 Replies
 
power14
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:52 am
@vikorr,
I think we should focus on both matters as both are as important as others
josh1414
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:53 am
@power14,
i agree 100% power14
TomFord
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:04 am
@josh1414,
i Agree 101%
josh1414
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:06 am
@TomFord,
you do know that percent means out of 100 dont you?
TomFord
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:07 am
@josh1414,
percentages can go over 100%
0 Replies
 
FUnderwood19
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2015 03:33 am
I disagree with concentrating on vandalism as a crime more than anything else because I believe that there are far worse crimes than vandalism as there is murder and robberies, etc.
I believe that vandalism is bad but it’s not worth letting murders and robberies go just for someone defacing someone else’s property.
Vandalism is a massive issue because loads and loads of people do it, for example in my village our local park has been ruined and vandalised because people find enjoyment out of ruining people property.
I would take vandalism in to account but don’t take it too far that you are not giving any attention to the major crimes.
I think that they should put cameras up in parks and outside shops because parks and shops are the two most common places in my opinion to vandalise as most shops close past 9pm on weekdays and parks are open whenever.
Thank you for listening to my opinion on this subject.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2015 01:38 pm
@dalehileman,
And we can bring in the NRA for the first 8 years of instruction. Oh wait we already do that.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2015 01:47 pm
@dalehileman,
Schools are places where children are taught the proper attitude in their environment. Not to think for themselves. If a pupil expresses an idea that isent what the teacher wants to hear the pupil is punished and taught not to think for themselves but to conform. Sorry, dident realize how old this site was.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2019 at 12:58:48