Emotional arguments about posters are weak and uninformative. Your bad.

Do you have any ideas about the ideas posted instead?

Maybe I was wrong about you. You actually do believe I made an argument even though I didn't. I made an assertion. I'm not sure how it's possible to misconstrue an assertion as an argument, and it's not at all clear what makes you believe it was emotional. But you're perhaps quite special in that way.

Yes. I've shared that previously. Did you miss it?

I'll now share a more direct argument, since that might make you feel better. The position that Masque has staked out is that OP is a failure because of his child's behavior. His child is the one who bit another student, and therefore the "bad mannered kid has already been failed by [her] parents." By extension, it would appear that Masque believes OP is "[raising] a predator and a sociopath by not teaching them empathy, only to fight effectively." For someone who talks so much about empathy and not assuming the worst in people, he seems quite incapable of doing that himself.

I think his position exhibits ignorance of any scientific literature on childhood development. I also think it exhibits both arrogance and general contempt towards parents.

That interpretation of masques ideas is too harsh and narrow a characterization and offers nothing about general philosophical approaches to violence and related behaviors in schools.

Back on the track of comparing empathy or might makes right...which do schools generally teach? What can a parent starting in pre-k generally expect? Anything but discussing Aaron's opinions of Masque.

Wrong. You mischaracterize again what i said. Standard it seems. Why?

I made it clear in my posts that this is typical young animal mammal behavior basically. But we try to rise above it and create a civilization out of the animal (human). Its natural for kids that play and fight to do all kinds of things even bite each other, pull hair and scratch with their nails etc. You wont stop that completely. A kid (your kid) needs to defend themselves over all kinds of other kids that are reckless and brutal, being raised often in harder environments without parents caring too much to discipline them better or while having worse examples than your kid.

The parent doesnt fail the kid because this happens. And the kid doesnt fail her own nature in doing that. She fails her promise though and her parents fail their responsibility in not taking this as a chance to learn something.

What to learn?

1) That you need to stand up for what is fair and right. You need to object to others taking from you what is yours and victimizing you and your friends and bullying in general.

2) You need to do it properly though. You do not bite, you do not try to permanently injure and destroy the other kid. You can push, you can slap , you can talk first before all else, you can refuse to give up in general and yield to their abuse.

3) You can talk to your parents and say what is bad and what is done to you or other kids at school (have an honest discussion every day) and then parents can then talk to the teachers without necessarily the kid knowing.

4) You can avoid being a cry baby and ask for teachers to help in conflicts because other kids will hate you for it and see you do not have an alliance with them against the grown ups, behaving like a traitor.

So you need to balance being yourself and standing up for what is right with the reality that in the large scheme of things battles over unimportant stupid games are not a high priority over health and over the other person's safety. If they are ignorant and careless you need to be better than them and protect both yourself and them from these failures that can harm both.


How do you get to do all this? You talk to your kid and you explain that you understand that they were correct in objecting to what happened to them but you also need to care for the other person that is failing and not simply inflict pain on them without regard as if you are an animal. Because if you take that route eventually someone may lose an eye one day when the kids learn to fight better or they may learn to be manipulative sobs and create havoc exploiting the other kids, their characters and their games. And then you have raised a sociopath, a predator that will win all kinds of battles in life and lose themselves in the process.


Not only that girl's parents haven't failed her since they show concern but she hasn't failed herself either. She did what is natural/instinctive to kids if left alone to battle it on their own. And all the kid needs is guidance to develop both a sense of empathy for other kids and a sense for justice and standing up for what is fair in a responsible manner whatever that is every time.

You will not learn all these things at 3-4-5y age but you will start learning them by having good examples, by having decent literature/entertainment given to you, by the example of your parents and by being taught to care for the detail of things and not for the brutal simplification of us vs them.

Nor does the general idea that this is about blaming the other kids' parents. The general parenting claim that if only parents would teach empathy that we wouldn't have certain types of problems is nothing beyond wishful thinking. It's ignorant.

It's an obvious false dichotomy. Claiming that schools "generally" teach one or the other is fraught with obvious difficulties related to over-generalization. In fact, I would argue that schools need to exist in the tension between the two sides.

And while some teaching is important, this isn't necessarily a case of teaching, as the emotional disposition of children is more likely to be genetic in origin rather than environmental. The development of empathy follows a general pattern, but it's far from a set one. And while parents certainly have a role in fostering empathy, it's not at all clear that the parents play a significant role in the cognitive development of empathy. If I remember correctly, this happens at around the preschool age, and usually as part of a social development with peers and not as much as a part of the parent-child relationship.

The best thing that a school can do is to set clear rules that are maintained equitably, and parents should do their best to support those rules to maintain a sense of consistency about behavioral norms.

You want me to address the ideas that are posted. But when I address what's posted and you don't want to talk about it. Make up your mind.

Maybe it's because you're not good at making your points in understandable ways. Perhaps if you were more concise, this would be less of an issue.

Before proceeding, do you have anything more than philosophical waxing to support your position? After all, you're a scientist. As you make assertion after assertion after assertion, at some point, don't you ever question the thought patterns behind those assertions? Don't you ever think it's useful to go to some scientific literature to understand the current state of knowledge rather than talking off the top of your head or out your rear end?

Right.... It's not like you didn't say that you should teach your kids that the parents failed their kid...

Simply put, please take the time to do some reading and become informed on the topic. You are not as knowledgeable on this topic as you think you are. I point to statements like this one as evidence of my assertion.

Your posts remain a lack of understanding on chronic display. What about your personal feelings about masque or anyone here not being legitimate knowledge do you not understand? Makes whatever other points you try to weave in tainted in a way deeper than your superficial whining about form.


May as well be useless compared to poster with a breadth of ideas who wastes little time writing fiction about posters.

Consider the following statement:

* Teach her that a bully or bad mannered kid has already been failed by their parents and environment somehow.

Question 1: Do you believe that this is a well-informed belief about other parents?
Question 2: Do you believe that this is a statement that is generally true to reality?

You better believe it that a repeat offender kid that is a bully and has escalated to a persistent problem not a 1-2-3 times thing very early but years later say 6-7-8 y + etc is a result of the parents not taking action to discipline and talk to the kid. Well actions start at the first and second incident. That is my point. You should not fail those first few times. It may also be natural to that kid's character/chemistry but this is a topic for research and if you have it bring it, i dont right now. Instead of attacking what i say present the literature.

But i do realize that there are many parents that either are unlucky by life and situation or true losers out there that do not care for their kids as much as they should or even abuse them and the kids get a bad example at home and replay at school. Do you dispute that many kids that are behaving badly towards other kids have somehow often been failed at home? If you visit relatives or friends and the kids play and your kid is badly behaving and you never correct it or talk to him/her then what do you suppose will happen at school when you are not even there? It's not like the kids only ever played with other kids at school and not before under some adult supervision or nearby observation here and there. Kids fight all the time with other kids. You see something bad and you correct it and after 20-30 different corrections maybe the kid is a little bit better behaved if you do it properly and not abuse the kid to enforce your ideas and become overbearing and simplistic.

Many parents are very easy going with their kids and see nasty habits and do nothing and other parents force their kids to behave better. No wonder you get then a world of kind kids and a$$hole kids that tease and abuse them. (we are nowhere near there at pre school of course but it will happen if you dont take care of a few things over the years)

Funny how suddenly all these topics are thoroughly studied and known and i am speaking cluelessly and not basically deserve to have an opinion like any human that has lived and watched the world. If we all wait for the literature to tell us what we do in topics that the research is often ridiculously poor and hard to control the conditions under which it happens then gl with that. Of course a real parent needs to talk to people that know professionally these things working with kids too, read children's books on these topics etc if they can, but they better use common sense too.


PS: Keep in mind the OP asked what your favorite Philosopher would say about this. One of my favorite Philosophers is myself by the way...That better be true for all of us as we age and learn the world and ourselves better.

Is literally and with prejudice the only way to read and react to that statement or can it be somehow taken as a general concern?

You can state 'a child is also still learning' to balance the statement, though one might think this is a forgone conclusion in general and the focus of the statement is likely for kids who repeatedly start and show problems.

'Kids learn behavior at home' is not controversial to say the least. . I heard a principal say it last year in a meeting about kindergartner violence in school.

I take the words as they come. Those are the words he said.

One could say that, but that doesn't change the claim of an underlying parental failure (which is the claim being made). That claim is wrong. It's not wrong at the level of nuance, it's wrong at the level of ignorance.

I don't deny that kids learn behaviors at home. But that's a short-sighted claim. What's more accurate is that kids learn home-behaviors at home. They learn school-behaviors at school. Have you never heard a child whose parents speak broken English or English with an accent, but the child speaks like their peer group? Or kids whose second language is English that speak one language at home and another at school? That second language was not a behavior learned at home. Kids often behave differently at school than they would at home? Why? Because those are school-behaviors.

Yes, pending on your concept of "failure." Exactly what do you mean by "failed at home"?

Ahhhh... back to bland generalizations.

You can have ignorant opinions. I can't actually prevent that from happening. I encourage you to have informed opinions. But you're free to do whatever you want to do.

LOL. "I'm good enough... I'm smart enough... And gosh darn it, people like me!"

Edit: Here's some reading to help you:

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dme...evelopment.pdf

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...eers-children/

You better believe it that the best parents have to play often against what the kids learn at school from other "a$$hole" kids. At teen level it can all go to hell real fast actually these days with all the technology if you are not careful and keep track of what is going on without being overbearing. They may learn good things too of course in a better environment or get challenged to academic competition etc. Plus even bad interactions are useful to build character and social skills. Those too are needed and can be very important teaching moments. In a way you do not exactly desire a totally clean school. This is why a well balanced public school with kids from many different diverse backgrounds is probably better than most private schools that segregate styles and income ranges.

But i bet this happens later typically after pre school and early primary school. You cant call them a$$holes at such young age although a lot can be seen early too. Lets just say that at around 8-9 and later you have some pretty well developed scumbag bullies at school that need attitude adjustment with nobody to deliver it. Plus because i call them a$$holes doesnt mean that you cant correct and redeem them and recover a better behavior going forward (i would never call them directly that or make them feel that way or trash them to my own kids and make my kids look down on them). All the kids need is guidance, love, good examples and some discipline that is explained to them why it matters to correct some nasty habits. You better believe it that the vast majority of parents are careless in these things or too busy with life work and divorces lol.


In fact at around 13-15 a kid that has "bad" friends can go completely to hell in terms of grades and academic progress. Add a couple crashes to girls etc and its no doubt boys are worse students typically at about these ages and later lol.

The thread no doubt can improve with links so thanks for a reading opportunity. But what exactly are the ignorant positions i have shown here again? Also are you telling me that you do not wish to consider yourself also a Philosopher? All people need to perceive themselves as potent thinkers of important topics and exercise their intellect by taking positions of their own on important topics if they care to understand the world around them. It is a work in progress that you better believe it these days with the access of technology we have available creates a Philosopher in each one of us.

Did you see me anywhere say that the genetics and the environment doesnt matter and its only parents? What parents are doing is trying to fight exactly those trends!!! And it is possible to modify the natural tendencies or at least to be somewhat aware you have them.

This is the one I'm trying to get you to address right now:

Blind parent-blaming is ignorant.

Denying parents commit failure is ignorant. So is trying to justifying ad hominems as a knowledgable counter-position to generalizations.

As well as treating one's opinion like fact and refusing understand past literal, prejudicial interpretations of other's ideas- even after further explanation.

So can we move on yet from the Aaron show? Violence in schools is an important topic to some people.

This really went in a different direction than I hoped it would. Moderators feel free to lock it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O1hM-k3aUY

I was looking forward to your Buddhist take, Go Blue.

It is you that is making one way characterizations of what i say here and focusing on specific sentences and ignoring the context or other important things added later on those issues. I said environment also didnt i?


Do me a favor and focus on positive contributions to the thread such as links /resources and direct personal original positions rather than polemic with me.

When a kid has bad manners the kid has been failed by the environment that helped it learn these bad manners or not correct them, maybe their genes and overall chemistry/personality and therefore in general the environment that made them who they are (Biology is also environment). Parents, neighborhood, friends, relatives are a big part of that though.

What on earth. Seriously cant you see how many pathological homes exist out there that create kids that are very bad bullies or engage in street crime and overall prove young criminals, real sobs at 12-15 already? Of course that is only one term of the "equation". What were these kids that killed that girl in a fight in a bathroom recently and were videotaping it? Are you telling me that this behavior has no connection with parents? That you can become such a person and parents fail to notice you?

What if a parent has taught his kid to try to separate and calm down the others that are fighting not to cheer and videotape them for example (isnt that part of your home culture of how to behave?). Did maybe the girl that killed the other girl remotely respect that girl's life at that point? Who teaches you these things but your teachers, parents, your education and environment? Wouldn't that girl have been helped if at some point her parents had taught her that yes you may find yourself fighting at school but never forget that you do not wish to harm irreversibly the other kid and you are best served to not exercise violence or escalate things and only defend yourself. Would that girl then still behave that way with the same probability?

Werent those kids at some point 5-6-7 and the parents neglected to focus on them very often or the home was very unstable and having all kinds of bad examples with violence and screaming and angry drinking parents, missing or abusive fathers etc very often? Do maybe such things help a kid grow up nicely and be kind to others? The connection is significant here. If the world you live doesnt respect life, your own life for example, how are you going to develop such sensitivities? At the same time a very clean environment is also pathological in some sense. World literature and exposure to life outside a narrow social circle can help you there. Talking to your parents about many topics helps.

I never said the parents are 100% to blame here in these things. We all father our world by how we treat each other. This thread is no exception by the way. That too shapes our world.

I do not deny parental failures. I deny the claim that one can infer parental failure from child behaviors.

I await for a direct statement from the author of the statement that actually directly addresses the claim that was made. Specifically, I'd like to know whether he still supports the claim or now rejects it. The use of many words and broad generalizations does not appear to indicate that there is any underlying shift in knowledge base in the perspective.

That's the extent of your defense of your position? You're going to wave your hand and say "environment" but then talk about parents did and didn't do anyway?

Aaron. If a girl loves her father and her father has told her from early on her life (like OP here that showed to care) not to fight with others at school if possible, only to defend and stand up for what is right but not be offensive and disregard their lives, would that girl still go for it at school the way she did? Yes she could but at least the probability ought to be different.

I talk about the parents and overall culture/education because this is something that can make a difference. A good community matters. It starts at home. You do not have the same control over your genes or the chaos out there.

You already got multiple responses. No point agreeing or disagreeing with a prejudiced interpretation, which isn't obviously effective to better define generalizations.

Empathy on the other hand is effective when children learn it. Have you considered the reasons to be kind to a kid that hits another kid from the different roles in such a scenario?

Why do we teach kindness to kids in general? Kindness leads to happiness and happy kids is a human objective.

Ought to be different relative to what?

Also, you have a large number of assumptive claims:

1) A girl loves her father
2) Father told her from early on in life:
a) Not to fight, if possible
b) Only defend what is right
c) Only stand up for what is right
d) Do not be offensive
e) Do not disregard their lives

But there is no sense in which there is an acknowledgement of prior genetic influences for either the parent or the child. What are the temperamental features of the father that would do these things that were passed along?