castledoom.com

[DrJoshuaFalken]

I was taking the Forced Labour Camp thread off topic with a discussion with JJ. I will continue it here.

Quote: Imo, rights are secondary. First comes the responsibilities. Fulfill them first and then you might deserve rights. I'm not talking about kid responsibilities. Pay your taxes, support yourself completely without government subsidy, serve on jury duty, and things like that.


I can see the logic and wisdom in this. However, the comment on "Knock them senseless if they dare give the teacher a dirty look", is a bit rash, I mean what message are we sending to children? That it is ok to harm others because they looked at you wrong?

And what of a slippery slope? Sure, it is ok for schools (mostly government institutions) to beat up on and brainwash children, everybody hates children and teenagers. But if the government thinks they can get away with that, who is next? The elderly? Or maybe it could be you.

[JuntaJoe]

The slippery slope concept is poor when you discuss youth and discipline.

Between hormones, lack of wisdom and knowlege, and little of material value to lose you get an individual particularly resistant to reason who is very willful.

No, you should not be slapped for staring at the teacher wrong arbitrarily.

First it would be explained to you that you cannot do that.

Next you would be gravely warned when you tested the limits of that instruction.

Now you will know intellectually that there is a serious possibility of repercussions for said act.

So when you do it anyway, then you should be punished sharply and immediately to reinforce the original instruction.

The message is not about punishment for silly things. The message should be that there are serious consequence for crossing established lines. Staring rudely at your teacher is more about respecting the position they hold, the instruction you must obey, and not about a dirty look.



Look, giving in to kids is stupid. Kids are biologically designed to be willful and mischievous. This is how a youth learns boundaries in life. They push one way. Guardians push back. The lines are then established. Then the youth paces the box impatiently to obtain adulthood and freedom. This gets junior out of the house and not living with mommydaddy for 30 years.

Schools should not be an alternative outlet for irrepressive youth. School must be stricter than home. Otherwise guardians will be frustrated in their efforts in guidance. And this will mirror adult life. Work is stricter than home.

Teachers and school officials must realize this serious responsibility on their part to both keep the instruction firm and carefully measure how they apply discipline.

There are many occupations in adulthood that require higher levels of discipline. It is their job to do the job properly and avoid the slippery slope. Cops, jailers, and drill sergeants must also use higher levels of discipline and still be responsible to society not to exceed their mandate.

[DrJoshuaFalken]

That sounds reasonable, though the potential for abuse of this system is great.

Never assume that administrators and teachers can not hold grudges, or worse, enjoy it in a sexual manner.

[JuntaJoe]

Of course the potential for abuse is there.

All positions of responsibility have that facet.

It requires training, commitment, an understanding of the gravity, and a host consequences for for not fulfilling a responsibility.


I've always been a proponent of cops and judges facing the next level of punishment for a criminal act over the punishment levels of a regular citizen. A cop who was convicted of a second degree felony would face punishment of a first degree felony.


But responsibility is the hinge point here. I had a job as an industrial buyer for a few years. Salesmen wanted to shower me with goodies to curry favor for their product. Tickets to sporting events, clothes, gourmet foods, free meals and drinks, you name it.

I had to be firm with them. You can leave me a gift, but it stays on my desk for random distribution throughout my firm. The only freebee I ever took was the free lunches. I figured that losing my unpaid lunch hour for work rated a free meal. And I told my boss that on day one. My gifts quit being a source of leverage for salesmen and developed into a random morale booster for the company. A guy who worked all weekend on a project would see a pair of tickets to a ballgame appear on his desk. My boss loved it. And I never game him ay of the gifts except the gimmee caps he collected. I figured there were two people who shouldn't benefit from this kind of bribery. Me, as the "doorman", and the boss, who made the final decisions. But we two were the only people I'd allow to meet the salesmen. A project manager happy about a holiday wine gift would not be allowed to see the salesman for fear of undue influence.

So that's how I handled a position of responsibility with potential for abuse. But my predecessor had just kept the free stuff for himself and never told the company. In the end, I noted an 18% drop in supply costs over my predecessor, and I was fighting inflation to boot. That made my years there some of the company's most profitable. The 18% drop in supply costs added 3% to the company's net profit balance. A 3% jump is huge on a corporate scale. In the end, we all got nicer bonuses, the stockholders were happier, and we actually began getting better supplies which made for a better product that our customers appreciated.

Do it right, be responsible, and you will likely get a reward as nice as if you had grifted it.