Morals teaching to children/teenagers

[SpellAndShield]

I agree that children have a more naive view of the world but also one without preconceptions. In most cases a child's view of they various types,races and variety of people is colored by their environment. By that I mean the parents, localized society and peer groups form patterns of response behavior that in the main follow them through life. The question of nature versus nurture has been going on for as long as people have been raising children, personaly I think it's a blend of both. Though the psychological make up of a child can be highly biased in one direction or another within the first ten years of life as noted by Thomas Aquinas on the moral side and Hitler on the less moral side. All in all there is no manual for raising children that guarantees a perfect result, it is very much a flying by the seat of your pants affair.

 

I truly don't mean to be polemical but you are kidding about this, right?

[marharth]

I don't believe morals should be taught to anyone. Children should be given the critical thinking skills and the information needed to draw their own conclusions, instead of having their parent's morals programmed into them.

Since critical thinking can't be thought without a basic set of morals such like the moral concept of respect for your teacher give you the values of free well and thinking

 

Respect for authority figures (that have no other reason to be respected) is something that destroys mankind. In no way is respecting someone who is teaching you going to help at all with free will and thinking.

 

To respect someone just because they are teaching you is the exact opposite of free thinking really.

[ginnyfizz]

In no way is respecting someone who teaches you actually stopping you from exercising free will and thinking, sounds like you are advocating anarchy to me, marharth.

 

A common theme found by those of us who work in social care is that young people will often state that no-one ever set them any boundaries. No-one ever says "No" to them or gives them any firm guidance. Then they come on Welfare to Work programmes like the one I work for (because this lack of direction leads mostly direct to the dole queue, it does where I come from anyway) and we have to start more or less from scratch.

 

Many of you are talking philosophically, rhetorically. I am talking practicalities because I have to pick up the pieces. Don't tell me it is more liberating for a young person to be allowed to loaf around on the dole rather than to be told to pull his/her finger out, listen and learn and make themselves employable. I had a young guy in tears of joy because, due in no small part to the guidance he had received from our team, he landed a well paid job that would enable him to provide for his family. THAT is freedom, brought to him by learning some moral discipline.

[BlackBaron2]

I have a problem with the "extremes", as it were: loafer who doesn't care, and helicopter parent. Neither is going to help anyone. I also don't think hitting a child will do them any good, in fact, this study suggests it's actually a bad idea because they're learning to be more aggressive.

 

There's nothing wrong with teaching a child to be respectful to people who are trying to help them. In fact, I think it's a good thing. I just don't think it should be done with screaming, hitting or name-calling.

 

If people wonder why we have a society of warmongering prudes...well...put two and two together. ;) We're taught that the body is shameful and that violence is the answer (do as I say, not as I do....doesn't work.)

[ginnyfizz]

Errr...I did not once mention using violence. Or name calling. We leave the physical and verbal abuse to the customers - a colleague of mine has been racially abused and I have been abused because I have red hair, for example. I am talking about challenging people about their behaviour and how it impacts on others. Some of my younger customers feel that it is perfectly acceptable not to look for work because nobody ever told them it actually isn't OK. And believe me, some of them still don't care and come out with the "Meh, you can't make me..." tactic. (We physically can't, but we have other sanctions...) There are others who can see the bigger picture though and they are the ones who will say that they are actually glad that boundaries are being set, lines drawn and standards set. How is it good for a young person to be allowed to drift like a rudderless boat, only to find themselves out of work and unable to afford even the most basic standard of living?

[BlackBaron2]

I was not responding to you. I was responding to Marharth.

[Lisnpuppy]

I don't believe morals should be taught to anyone. Children should be given the critical thinking skills and the information needed to draw their own conclusions, instead of having their parent's morals programmed into them.

Since critical thinking can't be thought without a basic set of morals such like the moral concept of respect for your teacher give you the values of free well and thinking

 

Respect for authority figures (that have no other reason to be respected) is something that destroys mankind. In no way is respecting someone who is teaching you going to help at all with free will and thinking.

 

To respect someone just because they are teaching you is the exact opposite of free thinking really.

 

I Think you may be confusing respect for obedience. I respect people, their values and their opinions. However that doesn't mean that I will do what they say. As Ginny said...I have free will and that is what I am teaching my child. To have free will, but have the intelligence to make a decision. To be respectful to all others, until given a reason not to be. Mostly I also teach her to be nice...but do not mistake niceness for weakness.

 

To develop creativity, strength of will, character...all these things start and end in the home. You don't have to let your kids run a muck to be creative. Creativity needs focus and that can only be gotten through the development of discipline.

 

I do not beat my child. However she understands that I (unlike some parents) will back up what I say. If I tell her that Doing A will get her B...then its B she gets.

 

I was much more careful with her younger and also more of a disciplinarian. Now she is old enough and I hope I have taught her well to make her own decisions in things. I trust her, until she gives me reason not to. But I do not let her forget that I am giving her some rope...enough to run and play....and also enough to hang herself. When she does she will have to face the consequence of her actions.

 

Even though my child spends a great deal of time with other people...it is MY responsibility to see that she is a kind and respectful person. One that is always given choices, even if she thinks they all suck. I make her do things she sometimes doesn't want to do...but it is my responsibility to give her not only choice, but every advantage possible.

 

Do I stifle her...I don't think so. I am NOT here to be her friend...I am her MOTHER. While I try to teach her morals and what I think is the right things I also teach her to explore and discover....and hopefully one day be able to make her own way and perhaps, take that road less traveled.

[marharth]

"(that have no other reason to be respected)"

Think everyone missed that...

 

What I am trying to say is that a teacher/parent has the same obligation to gain respect as the child/student.

[TheCalliton]

if a hot chick wants to walk around toppless, i am cool with it!

 

in all seriousness, genders ARE different. Im gonna stick with topslessness and say "Keep your shirt on" Women's chests are seen as sexual organs (and trust me when i say my girlfriend would agree, they arent just lobs of flesh hanging there) For men, shirtlessness is considered manly! Many great warrior peoples went without a shirt, or very little of a shirt. Gender equality would remove some of the attraction. MOST men prefer more feminine women. It gives them a sense of having someone else to protect and provide for. A sense of being a MAN

MOST Women prefer manly men. The strong ones that can hold their own. It gives them a sense of security to have a strong man looking out for them. It gives them a sense of SAFETY

 

Men and Women's minds work differently, to make then "equal" phsyically would remove some of the aspects that drive us. To keep a woman's shirt on is to say "This is only for one man" for a man to take his shirt off says "I am strong, don't mess with me!"

That and some women's breasts can be just god awful, and can some men's. So lets just keeps everyone a little happier with the view. Not that id like to see a hot chick walking toples down the street, but id prefer walking next to my girlfriend with her shirt on, knowing that im the only guy to see whats under it.

 

I also feel that women, being the carriers of our next generation, should be treated as the heart of our communities. Women are beautiful and crazy creatures. To treat them as men would, as said above, take away their status. Chivalry should be enstated, not toplesness.

 

I ALSO feel that children today (my generation) are pathetic. I see my friends making jokes about the president. Sure i may not agree with Obama 100%, but he IS the president and deserves some damned respect! This generation relies on technology, they dont realize the goodness of a hard workout! They don;t realize that honor is something they should strive for! They dont realize that everything they say and do is stupid! I am ashamed to be in this generation, ashamed that i associate with fools who can't use their own reason to see that what they say hurts others! to see that there is a line, and they cross it! to see that i am sick of their BS!

 

Another thing is corperal punishment. You children learn PHYISCALLY! i was spanked when i was younger, and i learned my lesson. My dad, when i was little, filled the bathtub with hot water. He took my over and put my hand in for a second. Obviously i disliked this. He said "hot" i learned the word hot. I went to touch an outlet, my folks would say "*enter name* hot!" and i would yank my hand away.

 

this generation is weak... i shouldve been born centuries ago, excep ti probably wouldve died if i had been born even 50 years ago.

 

but what do i know? im just the king of the lounge

Edited February 9, 2011 by TheCalliton

[marharth]

if a hot chick wants to walk around toppless, i am cool with it!

 

in all seriousness, genders ARE different. Im gonna stick with topslessness and say "Keep your shirt on" Women's chests are seen as sexual organs (and trust me when i say my girlfriend would agree, they arent just lobs of flesh hanging there) For men, shirtlessness is considered manly! Many great warrior peoples went without a shirt, or very little of a shirt. Gender equality would remove some of the attraction. MOST men prefer more feminine women. It gives them a sense of having someone else to protect and provide for. A sense of being a MAN

MOST Women prefer manly men. The strong ones that can hold their own. It gives them a sense of security to have a strong man looking out for them. It gives them a sense of SAFETY

 

Men and Women's minds work differently, to make then "equal" phsyically would remove some of the aspects that drive us. To keep a woman's shirt on is to say "This is only for one man" for a man to take his shirt off says "I am strong, don't mess with me!"

That and some women's breasts can be just god awful, and can some men's. So lets just keeps everyone a little happier with the view. Not that id like to see a hot chick walking toples down the street, but id prefer walking next to my girlfriend with her shirt on, knowing that im the only guy to see whats under it.

 

but what do i know? im just the king of the lounge

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/296453-topfree-equality

 

Bit confused about your post o.o