Police: Handcuffing 5 year old girl not a violation

[ans]

"Think again...and without the partiality of desiring to assuage responsibility."



Are you implying that I have a predisposition to provide relief from parental responsibility? If so, that's presumptuous of you. Honestly, you may have a predisposition toward presumptuousness. If so, shall I blame your parents?







* * *





"While genetic characteristics are in place at birth, social interaction is learned soley by environmental circumstances . . . "



Agreed.



". . . which are, in turn, controlled by the parents...or not, as the case may be."



Naturally. But you needn't muddy up the waters with the abundantly obvious. Of course things are either one way or another.



* * *



"Either way, the parents are responsible."







How so? If the case be that the environmental circumstances are not controlled by the parents, you then choose to assign blame to anyone nearby whom you deem 'adult'? You blame the nearest 'adult' even though the child is far more influenced by, say, a peer or peer group? You either decide, or let your government decide when a peer becomes 'adult' enough to be assigned blame? What age, DT? Eighteen? Twenty one? Personally I know fourteen year olds who are far more 'adult' in their behavior than many twenty and even some thirty year olds.



"And if they can't own up to it, they shouldn't have kids."



But they DO have kids. Kids have kids . . . all the time. You have plenty of children suddenly thrust into parenthood but if you refuse to blame these child-parents, you then blame whom . . . the grandparent?



"You only know of what you have seen."

Nonsense. I know of what I have experienced through ALL of my senses.



"Kids end up the way they do for a reason..."

Again, a fairly obvious obvervation.





but how come we haven't had this kind of problem going on until only recently (as in ever since the advent of the TV) though? Hmmmmm.



Are you serious? Consider:



"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for

authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place

of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their

households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They

contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties

at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.



ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L.

Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277

(1953)."





Here's another:



"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on

frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond

words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and

respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise

[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC)





And another:



"The world is passing through troublesome times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint -- they talk as if they alone know everything."

- Matthew Paris, 13th century





"Adults are resposible for their own actions...but are ALSO resposible for the actions of their children until they become adults."



And at what age do they 'become adults'?



"kids know how to refrain from behaving so IF they are raised in a properly structered environment."



Sure they do, but many kids intentionally resist parental authority no matter how much their parents attempt discipline.



If I make a case against a kid who decides to rebel against her parents and instead be influenced by their peers, then you will in turn blame the parents of the peer, and of necessity THEIR parents, and THEIR parents. So in your world view we ultimately need to blame Adam, or Eve, or the Snake. That derned Snake.



Better if we stick with "It depends on a lot of unknowns."

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; and the end of the world is evidently approaching.

--Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.

---

[DreamTone7]

ans - "...but many kids intentionally resist parental authority no matter how much their parents attempt discipline."



A learned characteristic...which the parents either taught the kids, or allowed them to be influenced to behave in such ways. Again, the parents are responsible.





ans - "Are you implying that I have a predisposition to provide relief from parental responsibility? If so, that's presumptuous of you."



Not at all...it's all too common in this day and age.





ans - "If the case be that the environmental circumstances are not controlled by the parents, you then choose to assign blame to anyone nearby whom you deem 'adult'?"



No...to the parents...they allowed the situation to occur. They had a choice.



ans - "You blame the nearest 'adult' even though the child is far more influenced by, say, a peer or peer group?"



The parents allow this to happen, if it does.



ans - "I know fourteen year olds who are far more 'adult' in their behavior than many twenty and even some thirty year olds."



Indicating to me that there is a wide range of difference in not only children, but parenting skills as well. Perhaps some of the parents didn't take responsibility for the childish 30-yr olds...with your observed results. Quite likely, I would say.





ans - "But they DO have kids. Kids have kids . . . all the time."



And this does not absolve them of their responsibility as parents. Kids having kids? As you can see, lack of responsibility in raising children snowballs. The damage is geometric...not simply additive. And you want to absolve parents of their responsibilities in certain circumstances? Great. Let's just add another generation of irresponsible parents to the mess and see if anything gets better.





As for all of your quotes, it is well known that only the well-to-do could afford to write or have written anything historical in those times. As a result, we have a very narrow understanding of the average culture...only that of the very rich. The ones most likely to have spoiled children...just as it is today. These quotes actually support my case that environment, as parents are responsible for controlling, has the greatest impact on how children behave...or missbehave.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[ans]

"A learned characteristic"



Speculation. You can't say for a fact that Cain slew Abel because Adam & Eve were bad parents, can you?





"ans - "If the case be that the environmental circumstances are not controlled by the parents, you then choose to assign blame to anyone nearby whom you deem 'adult'?"



DT: No...to the parents...they allowed the situation to occur"



What if the circumstances aren't controlled by the parents because the parents are dead through no fault of their own? Then blame the guardian, if the guardian is an 'adult', or the state, or an elder sibling?



* * *



"there is a wide range of difference in not only children, but parenting skills as well."



Agreed. A wide range.



"absolve"



My dictionary defines 'absolve' as 'let off the hook' or 'grant remission of a sin to'. I accept neither premise. I don't think it's a sin for parents to be unable to control a child, nor do I think said parents are on any 'hook'.



I also disagree with your premise that the rich are more likely to spoil their children. Can you provide evidence?



"It depends on a lot of unknowns"



Agreed.

[DreamTone7]

ans - "You can't say for a fact that Cain slew Abel because Adam & Eve were bad parents, can you?"



Can you say that it wasn't? Anyway, your point is moot...Cain was not a child, and Adam and Eve were no longer responsible for his behavior. He was on his own as an adult...in which case it was now time for him to assume responsibility for his own actions...including the raising of his own kids, if he had had any. See how that works? Somebody is ALWAYS responsible, or you can kiss away moral standards of behavior...they won't exist anymore, and gunning down people in the street becomes more and more socially acceptable.





ans - "What if the circumstances aren't controlled by the parents because the parents are dead through no fault of their own? Then blame the guardian, if the guardian is an 'adult', or the state, or an elder sibling?"



You blame whoever has assumed custody of the child. That's why it's called "ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY!"





ans - "I don't think it's a sin for parents to be unable to control a child, nor do I think said parents are on any 'hook'."



Then we must agree to disagree...parents are always able to control their children's behavior when they put their minds to it..."put their minds to it" is the caveat. And they are "on the hook" the moment the child is born...it falls under "assuming responsibility for your own actions" (sex, in this case). You are beginning to sound as if it's OK to leave a baby in the garbage can if you don't want the responsibility of raising it, ans...it's what you are leading to, anyway. Once you let parents "off the hook" for one thing, other things will follow...as sure as the sun rises. Your arguements are anecdotal evidence of this.





ans - "I also disagree with your premise that the rich are more likely to spoil their children. Can you provide evidence?"



You provided a bunch yourself with the quotes in your previous post...which happen to coincide with my observations of many families where the parents are exceedingly rich...and I'm talking about close observation. Specific direct cause for behavior is sometimes difficult to observe over a short period of time...but bad behavior that is based on a pattern of behavior is easy to spot in a second.

[ans]

"Can you say that it wasn't? Anyway, your point is moot...Cain was not a child, and Adam and Eve were no longer responsible for his behavior."





Of course I can't say that it wasn't -- I'm not the one who thinks it's 'obvious' that the little handcuffed girl's parents are the 'real criminals'.



My point isn't moot. You can't determine with any accuracy when a child becomes an adult because as I said before 'adult' is a pretty imprecise word when dealing with levels of maturity. That's why you either let the government decide or you just pick an age out of the air.



"You blame whoever has assumed custody of the child."



YOU do. I believe you do. You've made that clear.



"You are beginning to sound as if it's OK to leave a baby in the garbage can if you don't want the responsibility of raising it, ans...it's what you are leading to, anyway."



No, it isn't.



"ans - "I also disagree with your premise that the rich are more likely to spoil their children. Can you provide evidence?"



DT "You provided a bunch yourself with the quotes in your previous post."



Untrue. I provided a bunch of quotes that indicate that the writers observed such behavior. You need to provide evidence if you wish to illustrate how rich parents are MORE LIKELY to spoil their kids than poor parents. The quotes I reprinted provide no such evidence. Parents can spoil their kids in many ways that don't require money.



"Then we must agree to disagree."



Not necessarily. If you allow that it isn't 'obvious'-- only 'possible' -- that the little handcuffed girl's parents are the 'real criminals', I'll agree.

[DreamTone7]

ans - "You can't determine with any accuracy when a child becomes an adult because as I said before 'adult' is a pretty imprecise word when dealing with levels of maturity."



It is up to the parents to determine this point...though the government does for certain legalistic applications. The parents are, after all, the ones responsible up until that point...therefore it is their responsibility to make that determination. Hopefully they will base it on maturity level instead of some relatively random age.





DT - "You are beginning to sound as if it's OK to leave a baby in the garbage can if you don't want the responsibility of raising it, ans...it's what you are leading to, anyway."



ans - "No, it isn't."



Yes it is...intentionally or not.





ans - "I provided a bunch of quotes that indicate that the writers observed such behavior."



You provided no such thing that you know of. What you provided was a series of quotes by authors at various points in history who may or may not have observed these bahaviors...you don't know. But what we DO know is that historians have accepted that such writings are indicative of the minds of the very upper class, who were the only ones that could afford to have such works published. Things were different back then...it took a ton of money, relatively speaking, to have anything published.





ans - "Parents can spoil their kids in many ways that don't require money."



On this I fully agree...but we were talking about how people with a lot of money tend to spoil kids...not how money itself might be used to spoil kids.





ans - "If you allow that it isn't 'obvious'-- only 'possible' -- that the little handcuffed girl's parents are the 'real criminals', I'll agree."



Sorry. No can do. That would absolve them of their responsibilities in which they were obviously delinquent.

[ans]

"It is up to the parents to determine this point..."



And if the parents haven't reached the proper level of emotional maturity? They become 'real criminals?"







"it's what you are leading to, anyway"



"No, it isn't"



"Yes it is"



No, it isn't.







ans - "I provided a bunch of quotes that indicate that the writers observed such behavior."



DT - "What you provided was a series of quotes by authors at various points in history who may or may not have observed these bahaviors...you don't know."



Alright, then I provided a bunch of quotes that indicate that the writers WANTED US TO BELIEVE that they observed such behavior. I have no reason to suspect they fabricated these observations.





"Sorry. No can do."



Then upon these things we agree to disagree. Thank you, DreamTone; I enjoyed this discussion. Til we cross paths again, be well . . .

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

"it's what you are leading to, anyway"



"No, it isn't"



"Yes it is"



No, it isn't.

---

"This isn't an argument. Yes it is. No it isn't. It's just contradiction. No it isn't. It is. It is not."

[ans]

Galmin: "This isn't an argument . . . it's a contradiction"



I don't see any contradictions - yet - tho the entertainment value of this thread is obviously played. While I admire DreamTone for apologizing for some things he can't do, his apology certainly wasn't necessary, and besides digressing into the aforementioned "No I Didn't - Yes You Did" childishness any further back & forth would carry the risk of totally collapsing our positions, as happened to you and I back on the old GM seed thread:



Galmin: "Do you think natural seeds are not at all endangered?"



Ans: "I guess I'll answer 'no'."



Galmin: "And here we disagree."



As you can see, I responded that I DON'T think natural seeds are NOT at all endangered, and you disagreed, inadvertently placing yourself on the side directly opposite the position you had argued. I even hinted at this blunder before you committed it, characterizing your sentence as being 'elegantly constructed', but to no avail. Ah, words! Aren't they sometimes astonishing in their imprecision?



But it's all good



pax



ans

[ans]

re "just contradiction"



Sorry Galmin, I misread. You are correct, of course. It was just contradiction there at the end

[DreamTone7]

"This isn't an argument. Yes it is. No it isn't. It's just contradiction. No it isn't. It is. It is not."

[Galmin]

I guess Ans was missing from Monthy Python class.

[NRKofOver]

DT, I was one of six kids, raised by the same parents in the same environment and yet I was the only one who was a drug dealer at 14. And I'm the only one who went to college with an academic scholarship. And I'm the only one who has spent time in jail as a child. I was the rebellious one, the only one of six who confronted authority with passion and aggression. I'm the only one who liked the same gender as a teenager. Why not the others?



And even with the other five, one has battled drug addiction, two of them joined the military (but the other four are anti-war), two were jocks, one was a brilliant student, one became a hardcore Christian while still a child, even though the rest of us didn't. How is it that all six of us can be so diverse even though we were raised by the same parents in the same home?



Parental influence is most assuredly important, but as an adult, I can honestly say that my parents were amazing, phenomenal, brilliant parents who did a great job raising six very different kids with very different personalities. And anyone who would say anything different would be wrong. And my actions when I was a child were not reflective of my parent's value. I was/am a rebel, there is something most definitely natural about that trait because I started my rebellion in the first grade, and yet none of my siblings, raised in the same environment have ever been rebels.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - Yes, people are diverse. And yes, some kids are more of a handful than others. This changes nothing about what I've said, though.