Originally Posted by friday
It should be determined by the local school board. Some schools need it, some don't. And the schools that need it should have them paid for by that district's taxes or fees paid by the family. On that note, families who use alternative schooling for their children (home or private) should get a tax break.
Another adage comes to mind, "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world".
We can complain about the prez, congress, taxes, them damn liberuhls, ubercons, etc. all we want, but it is what we do as parents that makes the difference for the child, and by extension, for the nation.
Our younger posters in this thread don't like control, and maybe don't understand that good parents set boundaries for the child's own safety. Our daughter chafed a bit at the limits we set for her, but got over it and set similar limits for her own kids. If our son objected, we never heard it.
Long story short, being a good parent, and grandparent, should be our first priority.
There is too much talent wasted on this planet because too many parents abrogate their ultimate responsibilities to their children.
I have posted before, and won't repeat it in detail here, but the extended family on my wife's side is almost totally admirable, while the extended family on my side is pretty much the opposite. On her side, there was a solid connection to wonderful grandparents, on my side, almost total disconnect as the grandparents didn't want to be involved. So about half of my nieces and nephews are educated and working at good jobs to support the other half of my neices and nephews on the dole....
My children are important... sure. But one of the most important factors in raising good children is my career. I see my kids a couple of hours a week, and I usually have to put up with some homework help for them, but once the nanny puts them to bed, I can focus on what matters, my work.
Why have children in that case? You are never going to have that special closeness that a devoted parent and a grateful adult child share. In order to have that special closeness it is necessary to raise a child as if he or she is what really matters most. It is necessary to subordinate one's own interests to the interests of the child whenever required.
Special closeness? What is this, a fuzzy special hug moment? They are kids and I am devoted to them as anything. I guess I just understand what is important about raising kids, and it is providing for them. My career gives me that ability. I am sure that they know that they are important to me.
A special closeness requires prioritizing children. What do you do when your children want you to watch them play in a school soccer league game instead of meeting at 5:30 pm with a client?
It might have been Henrin in all the back and forths... and I did check, just checked again, spent ten minutes filtering through threads and couldn't find it.
I think that I got your comment mixed up with Henrins...
Our younger posters in this thread don't like control, and maybe don't understand that good parents set boundaries for the child's own safety. Our daughter chafed a bit at the limits we set for her, but got over it and set similar limits for her own kids. If our son objected, we never heard it.
At least the angry teenagers have finally understood that they have been bested by their superior elders...
[Tax breaks are ridiculous... who is going to make up for the loss in welfare programs once this slippery slope goes astray?
Nope. Imagining things are we?
No, you didn't. You made it up and now you're caught in the lie. Go figure.
I'm all for setting boundaries. This isn't about a boundaries. This is about about saying exactly what the child can wear. Its one thing to go out shopping with your kids and letting them look, and just say no to certain things. Its another story when you show them what they WILL wear and they have no say.
If you are trying to insult me with this crap just realize you are acting exactly the way I was.
Welfare programs? Not welfare programs! What will you do!
The most important work we will ever do will be within the walls of our own homes
Sure it is, with all your whining about being labeled as inferior and your bitching about authoritarian complexes and your crying about control issues...
When using fallicious during a debate, it generally refers to a logical fallacy. That is fine then, show how my reasoning is faulty, if you don't mind.
Even with regards to me, it is argumentative...
Right, got it. Each time I nail you you say, "I was not talking to you" or "I was not referring to those comments" or "that is what someone else said"... it is cyclical.
Is the nature of "consciousness" foreign to you? Thoughts, ideas and feelings that you are not conscious of are not known to you, hence pondering about it is irrelevant.
It might have been Henrin in all the back and forths... and I did check, just checked again, spent ten minutes filtering through threads and couldn't find it.
Just because I have personal experience doesn't mean that I am not better at objectively analysing it.
I have only said that you are naive... that has nothing to do with being beneath me. Wouldn't you agree?
No. The point is hardcore Evangelicals tried to control you and you resent it. Their failure is irrelevant.
And you have yet to show one tangible bit of proof regarding this matter. Not one. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Another naive comment. Of course everybody has their own mind, but parents actions have an enormous amount of influence on a child, both positive and negative.
I can't speak for the rest, but in my conclusion was entirely based on the content of your posts. Many people have disagreed with me on these forums without me concluding that they were teens.
Excellent quote, and so true. Harold B. Lee, wasn't it?
Dude, your response was not even remotely connected to what we were discussing. Bull****ting and attacking me isn't going to change that.
It is not something you are likely to see because it is simply your presumption that I must be a teenager in order to have the opinions I have. Rather, you just jump to an incorrect conclusion based off minimal evidence.
It was with regards to your attitude on this subject and why you keep using the word "argumentative"? This is an argument so it is only natural that it would be argumentative. Do you meant to say "debatable"?
You cannot have nailed me because those responses are simply the truth. If I say I was not talking to you, then I was not. If I say I was not referring to certain comments then I was not. If I say that is what someone else said than it was. The only pattern here is you being unable to follow this discussion.
Except the reason someone is not conscious of a feeling or desire is because said individual does not ever consider it. I am telling you that I would have been conscious of any such desire to be controlled.
Except you experience most likely carries it with some emotional association. I do not expect rape victims to be capable of objectively analyzing the experience. Any experience of emotional significance is likely to weigh on your objectivity.
You have said more than that.
Are you trying to imply that such alleged resent is the reason for my opinion? You are wrong if that is what you mean to imply.
Are you ****ing kidding me!? I already ****ing did, for ****'s sake!
That is true, but there are many other events and people who can have a more powerful effect. Sometimes the negative actions of a person influence an individual for the better.
Nope, you keep on about being referred to as inferior, when all we are doing is telling you that you don't know what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with being inferior, and I am going to stop discussing this matter with you since you either don't understand it or you are being dishonest about it.
The whole matter is essentially this... we had a baby that had colic, and when we mentioned this to other parents that had babies that had colic, they would say stuff like, "IMG, I know what you mean (or how you feel), our baby did too". We never once got a response from a parent that did not have a baby with colic that included "I understand" or " I know"... it was always something like, "I can only imagine" or "I am sorry to hear that, it must be tough". Why? Because they did not know what it was like. Sure, they read the books and heard our stories, but not having gone through it, they understood that they did not understand what it was truly like. You though, you just think, "I have an imagination, seen some movies, read some books, I know as much about it as Bodi, because I am more objective!" Complete and utter horse ****. Sorry dude... you just make yourself sound so ignorant. Im getting tired of you as well. Talking out of your ass without showing an ounce of compromise stinks of naivety coupled with arrogance. Angry teenager syndrome, really.
Dude, you are most likely not a teenager... it was a ****ing joke.
No, I mean argumentative... it is a legal term and has a meaning. Look it up. I know what it means since I have used it when representing myself in a case that I won in court.
If we are talking and you say something, I call you on it, and you respond... "I wasn't talking to you", then you shouldn't have posted it in a post addressed to me in a conversation that you and I are having. If that is me being unable to follow a conversation, I would counter that you don't understand how to have a proper conversation.
Holy moly... this is geting retarded. Children don't want to "be controlled", they want structure and consistency. Their want isn't conscious. They need them. They need routines. Studies show that when children are raised in a caring and structured environment, they are healthier and more well adjusted than those that aren't. A structured environment has rules and consequences. The parent is in charge. Can't you grasp any of this? The children, even aware ones, aren't sitting there saying, "I want to be controlled.". Any parent would say, and many of us have, that you don't know what you are talking about... why? You lack experience, that's why.
We tell children where they can and can't go. My daughters often come up to me and ask what they are allowed to do or where they are allowed to go, since they know that I am looking out for their safety. They want that. Sorry you refuse to understand this.
I am more objective than you, since you have been through it, by your reasoning... hence, your emotional association is likely to weigh on your objectivity and my conclusion is correct. Sorry...
Nope. You hve offered unsubstantiated opinions about control and uniforms. You have offered not one shred of evidence about uniforms, which is the topic at hand and the one that I want to get back to in order to sum this ridiculous debate up. You have shown nada about parenting and zip about uniforms for pete's sake...
That is true.... but. That is kinda how you think, isn't it?
The reason people say "I can imagine" is because most likely they would understand and simply do not wish to offend someone by saying they would know how that person feels. Such comments constitute the little white lies we call "respect" in society.
You were not joking and were you not just arguing that you were simply confused or that I had said something to imply that? Why are you changing your justifications?
I am aware of the legal term and its meaning. In fact, I got the impression that is the context you were using it in and thought perhaps you were a lawyer but pulled back from that supposition since it did not fit with what I have read and your general behavior. Certainly it is consistent with someone who represented himself once pro se and now fancies himself a lawyer. That would also be consistent with someone of your attitude.
No matter how you were using it my statement is still accurate.
Dude, you are the one who insists on responding to comments that are not directed at you. The fact you lose sight of that after some back and forth is no fault of mine.
So what you are actually saying is not that kids desire to be controlled because you do not actually have any sort of proof of any such desire conscious or unconscious. Rather, you say that children are simply healthier in such a context and therefore this must be something they desire.
I have actually provided a source earlier regarding uniforms.
So when a person tells you that their mother was raped and tortured and murdered and this did not happen to your mother, you would say, "I can imagine" to be polite but in reality you, "would know how that person feels"? ARe you being serious for even one second here?
I made a joke that we were dealing with three angry teenagers... I apologize if you thought I was being serious, but I wasn't. It was sarcasm.
If you aren't a lawyer, then you are just talking out of your ass and if you are I would expect that I would win against you as well. My wifes lawyer acted like you did, telling me what things mean or don't and guess what, the Judge agreed with me... I have represented myself twice and won both, once against the IRS and once in Family Court against my wife's lawyer.
Controversial; subject to argument.
Pleading in which a point relied upon is not set out, but merely implied, is often labeled argumentative. Pleading that contains arguments that should be saved for trial, in addition to allegations establishing a Cause of Action or defense, is also called argumentative.
argumentative legal definition of argumentative. argumentative synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
This point is getting skewed... chiildren are healthier when they are parented or cared for, that is how they survive at a young age. Parents use a variety of discipline techniques that range from modelling, re-directing and punitive, among others. I can't find studies that don't cost money yet, but from personal experience, asking and observing other parents, being in the education system, talking to PhD's in psychology and others, we all conclude that children that are cared for better, have clear and defined boundaries and expectations, are healthier mentally and emotionally. Children that lack this guidance, when provided with it, flourish. There is a profound change. Children, when asked about this, have expressed that they like and understand the clear boundaries and expectations, that it makes it easier to live. These boundaries and expectations are "Control". The parent controls the child within these rules. This is the control that I, and the other parents on this thread have been discussing.
Not to me, as far as I can tell...
The way half of them act these days, they should be glad we let them out of the house at all, whether in uniforms or not.
I'm all for setting boundaries. This isn't about a boundaries. This is about about saying exactly what the child can wear. Its one thing to go out shopping with your kids and letting them look, and just say no to certain things. Its another story when you show them what they WILL wear and they have no say.
That is a boundary.
It's just placed differently than you'd like it to be.
Why do you find that so unthinkable? Is it because you think something that horrible must be beyond a person's ability to understand without experiencing it? The emotions are not exactly difficult to replicate. Do you know about empathy?
You were not joking about assuming I was a teenager. In fact, you clearly were arguing that I was.
If you had bolded the first paragraph I might think you had some idea what you were doing, but the fact you highlighted something that would not apply in the situation you used it tells me otherwise.
You are grouping a number of things together, calling them "control", claiming children do better because of this, and that it is what all of you were arguing from the beginning. If this were a discussion about simply parenting it would be one thing, but you have all insisted on forcing kids to wear uniforms in public schools as a means of influencing the entire youth. So the notion that this was all you were arguing is garbage right there.
Sorry, I didn't personally contact you when I posted the link. :roll:
You are a special person... empathy? I will have to look that one up. Thank you for the guidance. In you light I will thrive...
Thank you for telling me what my intent was, you have keen powers of insight and are a truly remarkable individual...
It could have nothing to do with you just missing my point, as innocent as that can be? Naw... hell naw! I can see that you are clearly a person to be reckoned with... Again, it worked in court and helped defeat my opponent's main point in a case and the judge ruled in my favor regarding the objection, but... you being you and all, it is obvious now how silly I have been. I am sorry...
There is nothing special about it. I just acknowledge what most people will not.
It has nothing to do with insight, it was several posts back and forth convincing you I had never said I was a teenager before you finally fell back on the "it was a joke" excuse. Seeing that for what it is requires no more insight then is necessary to read words.
Dude, I don't care about some random unspecified court case you were involved with. The fact is you are not using that word for its proper purpose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?