NEW "What is bothering you right now?" Thread. Bonus: Now with 20% more bother!

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by 2.0, Dec 21, 2014.

  1. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,152
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    Trophy Points:
    156
    I've got five kids, from 2 years to 18 years. They are all very intelligent and receiving a better education than most. We also take time out to better explain some about the political environment in which they live. That said, there is no way that even they are prepared, educated, or experienced enough to forward a position such as the one in question. The reality is that these students are being influenced to do so by teachers, parents, and media. Essentially, they are conduits for the opinions and positions of others, used as political pawns or political currency. It's disgraceful and those responsible should be ashamed -if that were even possible anymore.
     
  2. Fishon

    Fishon I Will Close You

    Reputations:
    7,825
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    6,293
    Trophy Points:
    531
    I strongly disagree with this. Certainly, high school aged kids are impressionable and take their cues from parents, friends, mentors, the media, and the rest. No one is immune to this. And while their knowledge, critical and abstract thinking skills are not at their fullest, a late teen is quite capable of thinking for themselves and rejecting influence to a decent degree. Looking back at myself, I'd say I was naive at the time but could also reject outside influences as well. For better or for worse, these kids are a just a couple of years away from voting. If what you're saying is true, then a teenager could never claim he or she has any religious affiliations since they are incapable of being 'prepared, educated, or experienced enough', as you say.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
  3. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,152
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    Trophy Points:
    156
    School-aged kids typically range in age from 6-17 years. At older end of this spectrum, they are just beginning to develop dialectical capacity. I'm not sure the issue is that they aren't able to stand against influence, so much as it is for the many reasons I mentioned they yet lack the knowledge, wisdom, and experience to hold sufficiently informed opinions on complex issues. The thinking behind the voting was that it made little sense to deny voting rights to individuals responsible for, and providing for themselves. This is no longer the case (going the other way in fact), but I don't want to get off on that tangent. There's evolutionary function to children's brains functioning this way. Survival is best positively affected due to the rate at which children absorb information from the adults around them. It's obvious that children would latch on to the idea that the world has become a dangerous place, and simple to assume that "making a law about guns" should help. Pawns -and I think you know it.
     
  4. Fishon

    Fishon I Will Close You

    Reputations:
    7,825
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    6,293
    Trophy Points:
    531
    I assumed it was just HS. Elementary children? No way.
     
  5. Jarhead

    Jarhead 恋の♡アカサタナ

    Reputations:
    4,935
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    2,847
    Trophy Points:
    581
    Children (including HS) are absolutely easily impressionable. Including the whole religion thing. Adults are to, to some degree (especially in politics, toting the party line, etc).

    Anyway, my main question is **why the teachers were involved at all**? Were they leading the protests/moment/etc, monitoring the students (outside school property for the protest, I assume), etc? Why would they even bother effectively shutting down the school for what is mainly a political activity? If the students want to protest/mourn/etc, they can do that on their own time and with their own resources; don't mix up the school and the indifferent students into that mess.
     
    Gabrielgvs likes this.
  6. Ichinenjuu

    Ichinenjuu Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    851
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    76
    The teachers probably got involved because they saw the walk-out as an inevitability (i.e. some students are going to participate in it, regardless of any attempts to stop them, so they might as well try and make participation "safe" and "regulated"). But of course some went too far if they ended up behaving as if students had to "pick a side". Those that wanted to participate could have done so (and faced whatever consequences, i.e. a normal punishment for skipping class or nothing, if an exception was to be made) without teacher intervention.

    As for the whole issue of teens "not knowing enough to have an opinion", that seems to only arise when said teens are apparently forming an opinion that one doesn't agree with; if these students were walking out to support gun rights, I wonder if there would be the same griping from the same people.

    Nonetheless, whether their opinions are fully informed, it's important for young people to show an interest in politics (as Fishon pointed out, they will be voting soon, whether we like it or not, so this is a reality that needs to be reckoned with) and at least demonstrate that they are paying attention to the issues. We need not assume that the opinions expressed during this emotional nationwide reaction be their final word. At the very least, a dialogue has been started. (It's also unreasonable to expect that those who feel the most directly affected by something as heinous as school shootings remain silent and wait until they're older to have and express an opinion about what can be done. The immediacy is born out of the shocking nature of the shootings themselves).
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
    radji and Fishon like this.
  7. Jarhead

    Jarhead 恋の♡アカサタナ

    Reputations:
    4,935
    Messages:
    12,101
    Likes Received:
    2,847
    Trophy Points:
    581
    The thing is, safety outside of the school grounds falls under the responsibilities of police, not teachers.

    And no, teens are frankly pretty dumb people. I was also a dumb person as a teenager, and I certainly agreed to my opinions at that time :) . And while I'd be aligned if it was a pro-2A student movement, I'd still think it's stupid for the school to get involved in it and for the students to waste away their education for parading around politically. Do it after school.
     
    radji likes this.
  8. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,152
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    Trophy Points:
    156
    "Seems to arise"? When does this arise otherwise? :confused: Nevertheless, my criticism stands either way, and isn't reliant upon any particular political position. Children are not equipped to engage in substantive political discourse, shouldn't be exploited by teachers, faculty, parents, and politicos, and our schools should not be used as the battleground for partisan wrangling.
     
    saturnotaku likes this.
  9. Ichinenjuu

    Ichinenjuu Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    851
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    437
    Trophy Points:
    76
    Many adults are hardly equipped to engage in substantive political discourse themselves, but nonetheless, even if substantive political discourse is not carried out by the teens, this action could result in a discourse, either from the teens as they gain the ability to do so or from those paying attention to the issue that the teens are speaking about. I certainly agree that children should not exploited, and instances of exploitation should be called out, but I don't agree with writing off the outspoken teens' opinions as purely being the result of exploitation.

    I also think this is an important lesson for teens who may have misconceptions about potential political expediency to learn about political realities (and the sluggish nature of legislation and change). This may also cause them to transform "do something about guns" into a more substantive cogent position. Thirdly, a protest is often simply a way to vent frustration and bring attention to a pet issue more than it is any attempt at substantive discourse; that's just the nature of protest.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
    Fishon likes this.
  10. Gabrielgvs

    Gabrielgvs Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    1,152
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    2,015
    Trophy Points:
    156
    There's a difference between learning (which they should all be doing) and engaging -which they are not equipped to do. I also think we do them a terrible disservice if we were to encourage them to "vent" by walking away from what they really should be doing at school (studying with their mouths shut), especially when all it amounts to is fodder for CNN and FOX.
     
Loading...

Share This Page