Have you tried the new intertubes? They're much faster than those old interwebs, and they take up much less space. Environmentally friendly too, I hear.
Humor Random Comments Thread
- Thread starter Tex
- Start date
Have you tried the new intertubes? They're much faster than those old interwebs, and they take up much less space. Environmentally friendly too, I hear.
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
Happy Paddy's Day
Stevodoran
Donator
:hmm: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I still have my bebo page even thought i deleted it 3 years ago. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:hmm:
Truly random thought:
I was lying down just now trying to fall asleep, and thought back to another thread about proper ways of parenting - whether physical punishment was acceptable, IIRC.
Anyway, I was thinking about laws and punishment in modern democratic societies. It seems to me that punishment (imprisonment) in a country is roughly the equivalent of a parent beating their child - it's intended purpose is to prevent the criminal/child from doing that thing again.
The other way to prevent someone from doing something wrong would be to educate them beforehand so that they knew that doing x was wrong. I would instinctively think that this is the better way to raise a child - would it not be better to 'raise' a citizen in that way, too?
Is raising a child in fact the same thing as raising a citizen? Or is the raising a child bit done more at the home, and the citizen more at a school? Either way, wouldn't it be better if the government (which I guess is the parent of the citizen) were to try and raise their citizens a bit better? And if so, how? I haven't given this enough thought yet, but whilst I think this is a fundamentally good idea (government actively raising their citizens), I can imagine it either being labelled socialist, or me just advocating a theoretical anarchy (if the parent were to be completely responsible for raising the citizen, then what is there for the government to do - except parents aren't perfect).
So yeah...I don't know if this actually makes sense, but I do know that I need to sleep now. Comments, thoughts and observations would be appreciated.
P.S. if this doesn't make any sense I reserve the right to rewrite it in the morning (and please don't point out that it already is well into the morning, I am aware of that
)
P.P.S. My conclusion relating to anarchy sort of sounds like an extension to absurdity, which leads me on to my point - is there a fancy Latin phrase for 'extension to absurdity'? If not, I hereby call it extensio ad absurdum.
I was lying down just now trying to fall asleep, and thought back to another thread about proper ways of parenting - whether physical punishment was acceptable, IIRC.
Anyway, I was thinking about laws and punishment in modern democratic societies. It seems to me that punishment (imprisonment) in a country is roughly the equivalent of a parent beating their child - it's intended purpose is to prevent the criminal/child from doing that thing again.
The other way to prevent someone from doing something wrong would be to educate them beforehand so that they knew that doing x was wrong. I would instinctively think that this is the better way to raise a child - would it not be better to 'raise' a citizen in that way, too?
Is raising a child in fact the same thing as raising a citizen? Or is the raising a child bit done more at the home, and the citizen more at a school? Either way, wouldn't it be better if the government (which I guess is the parent of the citizen) were to try and raise their citizens a bit better? And if so, how? I haven't given this enough thought yet, but whilst I think this is a fundamentally good idea (government actively raising their citizens), I can imagine it either being labelled socialist, or me just advocating a theoretical anarchy (if the parent were to be completely responsible for raising the citizen, then what is there for the government to do - except parents aren't perfect).
So yeah...I don't know if this actually makes sense, but I do know that I need to sleep now. Comments, thoughts and observations would be appreciated.
P.S. if this doesn't make any sense I reserve the right to rewrite it in the morning (and please don't point out that it already is well into the morning, I am aware of that
)P.P.S. My conclusion relating to anarchy sort of sounds like an extension to absurdity, which leads me on to my point - is there a fancy Latin phrase for 'extension to absurdity'? If not, I hereby call it extensio ad absurdum.
Last edited:
Linguofreak
Well-known member
My parents never spanked me for what they hadn't taught me was wrong.
That would be child abuse.
They spanked me when they had taught me that it was wrong and I did it anyways. Generally not too hard, but hard enough to drive the point home, and almost always within minutes of whatever misbehavior was involved (often within seconds. I only recall once or twice that it was more than a half hour afterwards).
When the consequences of an action are separated by a long time span from the action itself, we often don't connect the two (especially as children). Punishment, if administered promptly, is, among other things, a way of bringing the consequences of an action to within a short time span of the action.
Well, there's [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum"]reductio ad absurdum[/ame]. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for.
Artlav
Aperiodic traveller
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,814
- Reaction score
- 869
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Earth
- Website
- orbides.org
- Preferred Pronouns
- she/her
Unless naturally inclined, a child would be no better than what his parents would raise him.
How does it work?
As a parent you have the child's authority. This authority is build because you're right. You tell the child that if he touches the hot thing he'll get burned. Eventually, the child touches a hot thing and gets burned. Such self-educating examples creates that magical, religious authority of the parents. As long as the things being told are mostly making sense, this authority would hold, and he would also accept things that makes less of a sense.
Many laws makes no intrinsic sense - why not cross the street on red light if there are no cars? Yet, good citizen must follow legal laws as if they were real laws.
Here we have a problem - a well-educated and raised child would be fully aware of and able to navigate the systems of laws and restrictions, and navigate around it. Not "don't steal", but "don't steal unless sure not to be caught".
How is this being fixed? Religious, magical, authority that parents have in their children's view, allow to fix it.
It can be proper religion, which can change the notion to "Don't steal unless it would benefit everybody".
It can be fear, through improper religion ("Stealing is sin, sinners go to hell, cheating that is impossible"), or infallibility of state ("You would always be caught").
In any case, parent authority is important. But, if the parents are lousy, this authority may never appear naturally - they don't explain natural laws to their children, they don't care about their well-being, etc. Then the authority can be set by punishment. If you don't do as we say, you'll be punished. The end-result is similar - the child learns that there are rules to follow.
But it also does not get any wide-area awareness of the world around, at least not from it's parents. Such awareness can come from other sources - by self-study, if the child is so inclined, or from the street, if not. The latter authority can completely erase whatever authority of parents was left, and bad memories of being punished can end up in him dumping most of what he was taught about. Worst case scenario.
So, here was my view on the situation.
jimblah
New member
NorCal Green
I hope everyone at Orbiter Forum had a green Saint Patty Day!!!:lol:
I hope everyone at Orbiter Forum had a green Saint Patty Day!!!:lol:
Stevodoran
Donator
Strange. I went to 4 different St. Patrick's day parades and not even 1 drunken Irish man.
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
We've just stepped through into another dimension...
I'll try to make up for that lack of drunken Irishmen tonight though.
Sláinte!
Stevodoran
Donator
Dhá
Dó
Beirt
These are 3 different ways of saying what?
Dó
Beirt
These are 3 different ways of saying what?
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
(Hands up) Please sir! I know!
2
But I'm damned if I can remember which one is correct where. Never studied the language until recently - UK education.
2
But I'm damned if I can remember which one is correct where. Never studied the language until recently - UK education.
Stevodoran
Donator
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
In about a hundred years I'll learn how to pronounce some of it properly...
Stevodoran
Donator
But wait. If beirt is the way to say 2 people. Then is Ernie a way of saying 1?
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
I thought Ernie was Bert's friend in Sesame Street.
Stevodoran
Donator
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
I'm on a roll ... must be all the beer I've consumed
Stevodoran
Donator
Belisarius
Obsessed with reality. Why?
Not in charge of any dangerous machinery at the moment, except the iPod player.
Ooops... wife and kids back from real life, got to go. Cheers
Ooops... wife and kids back from real life, got to go. Cheers
