Quote from: PseudoephedrineWhen you stated that the adults should have stepped in and started shouting and issuing commands and using threats of punishment to get the children in line. That shit is terrifying to kids, and doing it just involves using fear to get them into line with what you want.

And you say I didn't read your posts.

a) I never even once mentioned shouting, for or against.  

b) adults routinely issue commands, to children, to each other. In fact, it is becoming fairly widely accepted amongst the pychologoical professionals that lack of discipline in childrearing is creating serious, long lasting social ills.  If you don't tell children how to be adults they don't learn it on their own. Sadly, this requires occasionally issuing commands.  If you have a trouble with that, then there is nothing more for us to talk about, we are simply too far removed on perspectives.

c) "Ashley, you know it hurts mommy when you cry. please don't cry. Ashley, honey? C'mon, everyone on the plane is looking at us... Ashley, baby. Stop crying.... please?"

SO does not work.  Occasionally you will encounter an intractable child who simply does not do as they are told... just because they are told. So yes, an appropriate punishment may sometimes need to occure. Removing legos from a child who has refused to share is hardly emotional jerking around.

d) Fear? I think the only fear in your post was the shouting. See response A.  In other words, you made that shit up.  Hardly surprising. You have participated in this thread for the sole purpose of telling everyone else they are wrong, while consistently refusing to establish your own defined position. When people call you on something, with REFERENCES, you have consistently shifted your 'goal posts'.  I'll repeat it... your only purpose here apparently is to pronounce 'Me smart, you poopy-head.'.   That is a terrible horse to back in any arguement.  From that I can only conclude that you do support the teachers (since you seem to be picking arguements based on that support) but don't actually have any substance to base your arguements on, so instead you are reduced to trying to tear everyone else down.  

I've got one response to that.

Fuck you, and thanks for playing.

"Solidarity forever..."

TonyLB made some good points.

The teachers made a shitty game, overenforced it and allowed a personal political agenda to govern how they taught the children in a very intrusive way.

That's not really cool whatever the agenda.

By contrast, when I studied politics at 16 the first thing our teacher did was explain to us his personal political beliefs so we could take account of them in what we were taught and whether it persuaded us.  Of course, he was dealing with older children, but I think he would have been equally careful had he been dealing with younger kids.

Teachers forcing their politics down the kids throats is just not cool, regardless of what the politics in question are.  

In the end though, they'll have taught the same lesson most teachers do, go along with teachers rules and you can avoid dumbass punishments.  I doubt they taught much more than that.

Quote from: BalbinusTonyLB made some good points.

I don't agree that you can just make this statement.  Where are your sources to back this assertion up.  If you can't provide any, you're just making this up.

Quote from: BalbinusThe teachers made a shitty game, overenforced it and allowed a personal political agenda to govern how they taught the children in a very intrusive way.

Shitty is a pejorative term. Games are, by their very nature, fun. You must not understand fun or games or you would not have called them shitty. "Overenforced" is not a word.  It's only used by people on the Internet who have no idea what they are talking about.

Everyone knows that Marxist Theory dictates that political agendas are not a tool to govern, only to be shaped into political action. And Socialists all agree that you can't own property so you can't teach in an "intrusive" way. It's completely ignorant to assign these characteristics to these Socialist/Marxist teachers as it goes against everything known about Marxists Theory and Socialist Practice.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's not really cool whatever the agenda.

People who argue bullshit positions use the word "cool." I know this because you are arguing a bullshit position and are using the word "cool."

Quote from: BalbinusBy contrast, when I studied politics at 16 the first thing our teacher did was explain to us his personal political beliefs so we could take account of them in what we were taught and whether it persuaded us.

Your personal experience means absolutely nothing.  No experience means anything - this has been established by Nihilism since the 19th Century.

Quote from: BalbinusTeachers forcing their politics down the kids throats is just not cool, regardless of what the politics in question are.

"Force?" "Politics?" It's like you're using some conservative word jumble and seeing how many pejorative terms you can put in a single sentence. Did the teachers line the children up and yell at them to share (as Spike apparently thinks they should)? That would have been "force." This was simply an excercise to help the children understand how consensus-building community-based decisions are superior to the assertion of individual property rights as an extension of the power inequity of ownership.

Quote from: BalbinusIn the end though, they'll have taught the same lesson most teachers do, go along with teachers rules and you can avoid dumbass punishments.  I doubt they taught much more than that.

It's clear that you are only upset because you disagree with the consensus-building approach these teachers used to prove that community based resource sharing is superior to the arbitrary nature of ownership and the violence that always accompanies the assertion power through ownership. While I personally, am not a Socialist, I do believe consensus-building is a good goal and that the approach used by these teachers is a proven methodology in modern education.  Your rants indicate that you have no clear understanding of the pedagogical approaches of the 21st century and are merely spouting bullshit rhetoric.

:rolleyes:

Skach, you're not doing a very good job parodying me, if that's what that was about. You're just showing everyone how much of a maniac you are.

Quote from: SpikeAnd you say I didn't read your posts.

a) I never even once mentioned shouting, for or against.

It's true, and I retract the comment. However, you did advocate threatening them, and your repeated comments expressing contempt for "touchy-feely" ways of handling children and for "hippies" seem to leave shouting at them well within the allow techniques of parenting.

You also made the following comment, apparently approving, that "When the adults in my young life said to share, you shared. They had any number of ways to enforce it. ANY number of ways." That seems to approve of a policy that allows parents to be quite ingenious in punishing their children for disobeying them, and it certainly doesn't rule out force or threats of force.

When I pointed out earlier that you seemed to be approving of force, you did not deny that you were. Are you now denying it, and if so, how do you reconcile it with your earlier statement: "Did I object to authority or force being used? Of course not."

Quoteb) adults routinely issue commands, to children, to each other. In fact, it is becoming fairly widely accepted amongst the pychologoical professionals that lack of discipline in childrearing is creating serious, long lasting social ills.

Well, it's true, "pychologoicists" are dumb bastards by nature and as a group, they no doubt believe such poorly-formed generalisations as the one you stated. But in developmental psychology and in sociology, there is no such consensus prescribing what form parental discipline should take, or definitively characterising the effects of one form over another. The closest you get is a popular disavowal of violence against children, but that's hardly the same thing as what you're talking about.

Quotec) "Ashley, you know it hurts mommy when you cry. please don't cry. Ashley, honey? C'mon, everyone on the plane is looking at us... Ashley, baby. Stop crying.... please?"

SO does not work.  Occasionally you will encounter an intractable child who simply does not do as they are told... just because they are told. So yes, an appropriate punishment may sometimes need to occure. Removing legos from a child who has refused to share is hardly emotional jerking around.

Removing the LEGOs isn't what is being referred to. Earlier in this discussion you presented an example where an adult made a demand of a child with the threat of punishment if the child didn't follow the demand. The adult in the example didn't explain themselves to the child, they merely demanded. It was your example - you could have written it any way you pleased - and you chose that exchange.

You also continuously denigrate ways of parenting that involve appealing to the child's rationality, both in your example here, and in your complaints earlier in this thread. If you are not appealing to the child's reason, then you are appealing to their emotions. I'm much of the "ANY number of ways" the parents you approve of used to get their kids in line involved emotionally jerking them around, with threats, demands, punishment and perhaps occasionally bribes.
 

Quoted) Fear? I think the only fear in your post was the shouting. See response A.  In other words, you made that shit up.

Actually, you advocated the adults threatening the children, as I explained above.

QuoteHardly surprising. You have participated in this thread for the sole purpose of telling everyone else they are wrong, while consistently refusing to establish your own defined position. When people call you on something, with REFERENCES, you have consistently shifted your 'goal posts'.  I'll repeat it... your only purpose here apparently is to pronounce 'Me smart, you poopy-head.'.   That is a terrible horse to back in any arguement.  From that I can only conclude that you do support the teachers (since you seem to be picking arguements based on that support) but don't actually have any substance to base your arguements on, so instead you are reduced to trying to tear everyone else down.

For someone who advocates toughening today's kids up, you're a pretty big sniveller. "Pychologoicist", heal thyself! It's true, I am a mean guy, but I adhere more closely to the standards of rational discourse than you do. I haven't had to shift my goal posts - my position has remained identical throughout. I have chosen to criticise your views instead of presenting my own simply because your views are more ludicrous and therefore more interesting. As your views wriggle and writhe, I've had to focus on different parts of them, but not because my own position has changed - merely because the course of the discussion has moved from focusing on one point to another.

My position can be clearly stated without ideological language, rhetoric or similar nonsense. It is simply this:

The teachers did nothing wrong. They did not do anything illegal, they did not do anything immoral. I think they did no harm to the children. I do not like the political position they advocated, but I do not think they should be punished in any way for advocating such a position.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSkach, you're not doing a very good job parodying me, if that's what that was about. You're just showing everyone how much of a maniac you are.

"Parodying" isn't even a real term. Besides which, though no known definition of the word includes it, parodying requires doing so in a dogmatic way. Please don't assume that the dictionary is a source of information about what a wrod means - not without consulting my defintion first.

Demonstrating my insanity to everyone is, as everyone knows, impossible.  Not "everyone" in the world is reading this, so how could "everyone" be shown something?

"Maniac" is pejorative term. Since you can't determine my actual mental health via the Internet, it's much better to use the term enthusiastic.  My post was "enthusiastic."

Oh, and you've yet to refute the notion that the teachers lied to the students when they claimed to not have the answer. Guess you've got nothing to say to that post - or at least nothing thats not a dodge.

Pseudo:

More with the only tearing down other's arguements?  Do you even have a position to take?

Oh, yes, right: Psychologists are dumb. Great position.  Not even an attack on my arguement, just a random drive-by on mental health professionals... attacking some random background to a support of my arguements.  Reaching much?

Shouting is not force, nor is it particularly discipline inducing. It's shouting and threatening behavior, which, with your SINGULARLY dogmatic approach to language, you should recongnize are two seperate things.  Indeed, while the strictest and most literal interpretation of threaten would suggest it is impossible to use any threat without being 'threatening' it is well established that words have nuance.  So, yes, If necessary I do advocate certain useages of threats to enforce authority.  Authority is fairly meaningless without some sort of threat to back it up.  

If I read you correctly, which is admittedly hard since you are so much smarter than everyone here... well, really since you refuse to put forth an opinion of your own, the only thing you advocate in child rearing is some sort of 'lord of the flies' approach. Let the little bastards do what they want.  Unless, of course, some pie in the sky collectivity lesson could be taught instead.

I find it particularly amusing to see you say you don't shift your goal posts.  This is in light of the fact that you have yet to express an reason for arguing in this thread other than 'every voice should be heard'.... that is, arguing for the sake of arguing.  And in light of the exchange regarding the term politically correct, where you were shot down quite handily, with references, then immedeatly shifted your goal posts in an attempt to invalidate the call.




While I don't have a cute link to a comic site for 'internet flamewarriors', I none the less call upon the powers invested in me to hearby label you, Psuedophendrine, a Tar Baby. Your obvious tactics are simply to instigate others into straying forth in their arguements so you can attack... not the arguement itself, but the verbal weapons they deploy. Your secret weakness is that you are unable to form an opinion of your own, thus can not attack unless attacked first.  

Seeing as this is the third time I've called you on it that I can remember off the top of my head, I am well and truely done with you.   I leave you the wasted battlefield, to enjoy the scent of your own bullshit which litters it.

How about if we make a LEGOs roleplaying game or setting ?

Something inspired and weird should come out of all of this.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarHow about if we make a LEGOs roleplaying game or setting ?

Something inspired and weird should come out of all of this.

There's Mechaton....

Quote from: KoltarHow about if we make a LEGOs roleplaying game or setting ?

Something inspired and weird should come out of all of this.

- Ed C.

I think that's the recommendation for Savage Worlds mini purposes.

Or am I just thinking of Rich Stokes' 50 Fathoms game?

We could--but I don't want to be the one writing the rules about what point value each block has and how to assemble them into 'fair and balanced' killer deathbots. I mean . . . I'm a schoolteacher and people might get the wrong idea.

Quote from: droogThere's Mechaton....

That sounds rather amusing, though I really need to see pictures of or witness actual play to be sure.  Were we at a different site that supported such, I would indeed rep you for that link.

Pictures? I can do that....

Quit that!  This thread and finding pictures online of a Lego Nimitz class carrier and a 8 foot long Venator class Star Destroyer has made me want to buy Legos.  I have too much junk lying around.  I cannot buy Legos.  Don't make me buy Legos!