TimG Posted November 29, 2013 Report Share Posted November 29, 2013 (edited) I'm with Black Dog on this. The only variable, seriously? I mean, you just admitted in the previous sentence that the environment has changed! It has, drastically.Sure. That does not means it is more stressful. If anything, life for a teenager today has been easier than it ever has been. Now life for a 20 something - that is tougher because the job market has changed and the job opportunities their parent's had are not there anymore. Edited November 29, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) The idea that bullying when Argus and Nellie Olson were pushing unpopular kids off the back of the wagon on the way to the one room schoolhouse is the same as bullying in the 21st Century is pretty ludicrous. What makes you think I wasn't the one being pushed? But I agree it's not the same. After all, being called names on the computer is far worse than getting beaten up in real life, right? Also worth noting: teen suicide rates are lower now than they were in the 1980s and '90s. Perhaps marginally, but they're rising again of late. Finally, the age group seeing the greatest increase in suicide rates between 1999 and 2010 are the middle aged (35-64), who, one would assume, are the same tough guys that Argus is talking about. One expects a certain degree of suicide among older folks due to such things as diseases and marital breakdowns. Young people, with their whole lives ahead of them, should not be killing themselves. Edited November 30, 2013 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 The other explanation is that the teen suicide rate has been stable for 40 years, as the most recent data suggests (see page 7). http://www.suicideprevention.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/StatsCan-SuicideRates_AnOverview-July2012.pdf That chart ignores adolescents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Fantastic. Let's all beat the children then, so they'll be good. Some days I really wonder about this place... Exactly. What a disgusting and appalling first couple of posts. Do you people even do any research into these ideas before suggesting utter idiocy? You know there are studies out there about the effects of abuse on children. Feel free to look them up, then come back and tell the forum how completely wrong your ideas were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Do children need to be beaten more? No, but I wouldn't lose much sleep if someone took you out behind the woodshed. What an utterly ridiculous question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I don't believe that children today are markedly different than children of any era. What has changed is the extraordinary and most often unworthy attention that can be focused on anything via the Internet. It's a massive boon to the media, who can now get alarmed and outraged about nothing instead of actually seeking out a worthwhile story. Another thing that has not changed is the quality of parenting. There is still the same wide range from high quality parents to the shockingly deficient. You rarely hear of the former group. Its not just the quality of parenting its the quantity. Most families have two working parents now. This leaves less time for parents and kids to do things together, and traditional things like "sit down family meals" are for many families a think of the past. Anyhow, the REAL difference is this conversation itself. When an incident like this happened 20 years ago (and they did happen) it was a short blurb in a local newspaper. But now everyone has a camera and the first thing people do is upload the videos of these things to viral video sites. Iv seen more incididents of violence in the last 10 years than in my whole life before that. Its everyone now... I can go online and watch tens of thousands of outrageous assaults, beatings, shootings, etc. But it skews your perception because the reality is that these type of crimes are actually in decline. They happen less... we just see them more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Exactly. What a disgusting and appalling first couple of posts. Do you people even do any research into these ideas before suggesting utter idiocy? You know there are studies out there about the effects of abuse on children. Feel free to look them up, then come back and tell the forum how completely wrong your ideas were. Phew! I'm glad you stopped at couple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 These kids emerge as adults in mame only, never having faced challenges on their own, emotionally weak and lacking the necessary backbones hard times bring. Suicide rates are rising among Canadian university students amid what CTV has called an 'epidemic of mental health problems', and we've all heard ad nauseum about the younger kids killing themselves over 'bullying' including 'cyberbullying'. I don't think beatings would change any of that. A child can learn to be a responsible adult quite easily without any beatings at all. So no, no child needs beatings. ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 I don't buy this for a second. The environment has changed but it takes a special type of arrogance to claim it is necessarily worse than in the past. The only variable that may have changed are the way people choose to cope with stress. And how DO they cope with the stress? How are they told to deal with stress? (I can prescribe a pill for you...) And it is worse now. You are bombarded with imagery telling you to be one way and how to be cool and beautiful when things are opposite of that. Societal pressures are a lot more intense. Everything is more extreme, hypehyphype, go go go, life moves so fast. A false sense of reality. A false sense of self. It's hard to explain why it is worse, as it is an all encompasing type of thing. Overall life is not harder, that I agree, but what is harder is the ability to maintain your individuality. Your sense of self. It is a lot of psychological stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Fantastic. Let's all beat the children then, so they'll be good. Some days I really wonder about this place... Some days I really wonder about Argus. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Also worth noting: teen suicide rates are lower now than they were in the 1980s and '90s. Finally, the age group seeing the greatest increase in suicide rates between 1999 and 2010 are the middle aged (35-64), who, one would assume, are the same tough guys that Argus is talking about. So the question isn't why are kids so soft, but rather why are so many tough older folks killing themselves at such a greater rate? Good info, BD.Well Argus, seems like your old guy resentment of youth, desire to beat and punish them to 'toughen them up', is quite misplaced. You think maybe we should beat the old folks instead? . Edited November 30, 2013 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) You are bombarded with imagery telling you to be one way and how to be cool and beautiful when things are opposite of that.It was always like that. OTOH - communication technology has connected teens that would have felt they were alone in the past. For example, a gay teen in the 50s would have suffered in silence - today there is a huge support group for gay teens that can be accessed with a few clicks of the mouse. On the whole I would say the environment for teens is easier than it has ever been. Edited November 30, 2013 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Exactly. What a disgusting and appalling first couple of posts. Do you people even do any research into these ideas before suggesting utter idiocy? You know there are studies out there about the effects of abuse on children. Feel free to look them up, then come back and tell the forum how completely wrong your ideas were. Nobody suggested children should be abused. You should stop misconstruing things and then getting all hyped up and tearful about them. It makes you seem very, very foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Some days I really wonder about Argus. . Yes, I know, I know. I should realize by now that the general IQ level of this forum is fairly low, and their understanding of basic concepts tends not to past the obvious. The 'children need to be beaten' is more a metaphore than a suggestion. Ie, they need to experience losing, failing, and thus discovering how to cope with that. Hell, they aren't even beaten in sports in places now because that might hurt their spirit! Sports teams aren't even keeping score! http://ww3.suicideinfo.ca/ForProfessionals/TrendsinYouthSuicide/tabid/710/Default.aspx http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canadian-researchers-alarming-rise-suicides-among-teen-pre-210437470.html Edited November 30, 2013 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Nobody suggested children should be abused.Posing the idiotic question "do children need to be beaten more" is a hell of a lot more foolish than someone reading it thinking that you're suggesting children should be beaten more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Yes, I know, I know. I should realize by now that the general IQ level of this forum is fairly low, and their understanding of basic concepts tends not to past the obvious. The 'children need to be beaten' is more a metaphore than a suggestion. Ie, they need to experience losing, failing, and thus discovering how to cope with that. Hell, they aren't even beaten in sports in places now because that might hurt their spirit! Sports teams aren't even keeping score! Well Argus it's up to you if you want to change the stupid thread title but it does make you look like a bitter old fool who wants to beat kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Well Argus it's up to you if you want to change the stupid thread title but it does make you look like a bitter old fool who wants to beat kids. What do I care what stupid people think of me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) . Edited November 30, 2013 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) . Edited November 30, 2013 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Nevermind. No sense in having Charles lock another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Title of the thread should be 'Should we allow children to experience failure'. And to that I say yes indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Title of the thread should be 'Should we allow children to experience failure'. And to that I say yes indeed. Such a title would be incomplete. Failure is something which happens on occasion. You tried to bake some cookies and they turned out mushy. Being beaten is something else again, as in your team gets slaughtered 13-0 in the big game. One is dissapoining, the other emotionally devestating. It is the crushing defeats of life from which we learn to solidify our personalities, not minor failures. Many school systems won't fail a child because they consider it damaging to their self-esteem, for example. I think they ought to be held back a year if necessary. They'll learn there are severe consequences to not working hard that mommy and daddy can't protect you from. Edited November 30, 2013 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) Such a title would be incomplete. Imcomplete, yes but still more accurate to what you decided on for a threat title. Your title is deliberately missleading. Failure is something which happens on occasion. You tried to bake some cookies and they turned out mushy. Being beaten is something else again, as in your team gets slaughtered 13-0 in the big game. And if you are not winning, you are losing, aka failing. One is dissapoining, the other emotionally devestating. Actually both can be dissapointing and emotionally devestating. Ever prepare a lare holiday dinner and have it go wrong? You are really getting at that people need to experience failure. Failure too win, failure to get a good grade, ect. It is the crushing defeats of life from which we learn to solidify our personalities, not minor failures. Many school systems won't fail a child because they consider it damaging to their self-esteem, for example. You mean 'beat' a child. I think they ought to be held back a year if necessary. They'll learn there are severe consequences to not working hard that mommy and daddy can't protect you from. I agree. Edited November 30, 2013 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Actually both can be dissapointing and emotionally devestating. Ugh. Toughen up, seriously. Neither losing a sports game nor messing up a dinner are "emotionally devastating". Both are completely trivial failures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 30, 2013 Report Share Posted November 30, 2013 Ugh. Toughen up, seriously. Neither losing a sports game nor messing up a dinner are "emotionally devastating". Both are completely trivial failures. It's sad to see grown men cry when their fave sports team does not win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.