Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:48:01 GMT, "Stephen!" wrote:

toto wrote in
:

What did your mom do?

Laughed at her... Told her to get over it...

That's too bad.

I would have probably talked to the principal and seen
if you could have skipped a grade or at least been placed
in another kindergarten class.

Stuff like that didn't happen then and there. you had to be X years old by
YY date or you were not getting into 1st grade...

Depended on the school. My cousins skipped grades. So did my aunt
and I started a year early in Kindergarten though that was in Catholic
school and I transferred to public school in 2nd grade (didn't get put
back a year when I did). Of course, your school may not have allowed
it, that's why I said check and see. My son and daughter didn't
skip, but were in multiage classes and pullouts for various subjects -
my dd for great books, my son for math in elementary school.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:39:41 GMT, "Stephen!" wrote:

toto wrote in
:


What did your mom do?

Laughed at her... Told her to get over it...

That's too bad.


Really? Why is that? What was she supposed to do, apologise?

I misread that. I thought your mom told *you* to get over it.

I think she did the right thing... The "teacher" was bitching at my
mother because my education was beyond the "accepted norm",
my mother put her in her place.


Of course, your school may not have allowed
it, that's why I said check and see.


To what end? What difference would it make? It happened
30+ years ago... I got over it...

I am sure you did. I mean that at the time, you might have
had a better experience had she found out if you could have
been skipped a grade or two. And it certainly was possible
in the late 50s when I was in school. Don't know if it was
when you were in school, but it's too bad it didn't happen
even if you are over it.

In a similar situation with your own child, I would hope you
would find a better solution.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

toto wrote in
:


What did your mom do?

Laughed at her... Told her to get over it...

That's too bad.


Really? Why is that? What was she supposed to do, apologise?

I think she did the right thing... The "teacher" was bitching at my
mother because my education was beyond the "accepted norm", my mother put
her in her place.


Of course, your school may not have allowed
it, that's why I said check and see.


To what end? What difference would it make? It happened 30+ years
ago... I got over it...


--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message ...
In article ,
0tterbot wrote:

notwithstanding the fact that the jumped-up citizen's _own_ life might be
ruined by their own behaviour,

Need to get rid of anti-self-defense laws in the adult world as well, then.

I agree.

When society denies the existence of *evil*, society loses the fight,
and the terrorists have won. The same goes with individuals and
organizations who deny evil.

Somebody is sure to ask: how to define good and evil, or right and
wrong, or legal and illegal. There is no one true answer - but
there are good approximations that have worked, more or less, for
many years. The civil moral code of Western Society (esp. America)
which maximizes personal freedom, the right to life, property
rights, and freedom of speech and action - is the best example.

Many of these "good approximations" are wholly secular in nature,
and have no connection to any religion.

The idea of "evil" is very non-PC. PC focuses so much on rules
and regulations themselves, and groups and tribes, but not on
individual justice. PC actually favors bullies, with punishments
(e.g. academic failure, ruined careers) that punish only Productive
Conscientous people. Ironically, these kind of people, being
morally sound, need PC the least.

You view the bullies as people with problems which can be solved and
will make them non-bullies; I view them as people who make problems
and will always be bullies if they get a chance.

The truth is probably between the two extremes.

There are people who are evildoers, and criminals. They may or
not be clinical psychopaths - but they are unchangeable. OTOH,
there are some that can be rehabilitated. It seems that early
intervention has the best chance - which is why schools need to
do a better job with bullies, vandals, and other young criminals.

(Robyn Kozierok) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Roger Dodger wrote:
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote in message

If a boy is
very sensitive and prone to crying readily, getting him to stop that,
if it's even possible, would probably reduce his being bullied, but
is that a reasonable change to ask?

If a boy is very sensitive - to an alien environment filled with
strangers under no compulsion to accept or tolerate him, that just
happen to be his age, with no consideration of interests, abilities,
or talents.

I think you are saying that an inappropriate school environment
causes oversensitivity?

In some cases. And other cases, it's just an inappropriate
environment - just like an apple orchard is for someone allergic
to apples.

I know a preteen boy in a wonderful school where his classmates do not
happen to be his age, and where interest, abilities and talents are
honored. Still, several times per year, he will be reduced to tears
over some disappointment -- a much anticipated activity unavoidably
postponed or cancelled, for example.

At the risk of being harsh, it sounds like life. Every once in
a while, everyone is severely disappointed. "Several times a
year" doesn't sound too bad. If this happened every week, then
it would be a cause for worry.

Another question: how does he fair in other environments, such
as home, or a park, or library, or bowling alley?

This boy is *not* a victim of bullying in his current environment,
because it is not tolerated and there is a lot of time spent on
encouraging kindness, etc.

That's good.

But his parents worry about him becoming
a victim in other environments in the future. The fact is that a
highly-sensitive individual is not always able to conceal or control
his tears, and this can make him a victim of bullying.

He just needs a proper work environment. A loading dock is not
proper for him. An academic classroom or lab is a proper one,
or at least better. He will have to factor in his sensitivity
when making a career choice. I could never be a fighter pilot,
or astronaut, because of my poor vision and reflexes.

Ideally, all
children should be in great environments like the one he is in where
bullying just doesn't happen, but I'm not really sure how realistic
that is.

Schools can do their best, rather than just be passable.

Charles Soto wrote in message ...
(Roger Dodger) wrote:

Not all of these groupings promote knowledge. While the various
"races" are equal in intellect, the various ethnicities do not
value knowledge equally. The cultures of the Jews, Chinese, and
Koreans are the most pro-knowledge; while urban ghetto blacks
and rural whites are the least. Perhaps the worst example of
anti-intellectual school bullying is the oppression, within the
black community, of their own people of knowledge, for "acting
white". And the school admins do nothing about this - they
have a code of moral relativism.

Oh dear lord. You have a sheltered view of the world.

Afraid of the unvarnished non-PC truth?

Actually, you should read up on this.

What do you think I was arguing all the while.

The PC crowd says that "poor
Juanito can't learn," and therefore support the "dumbing down" being
spoken of. Pseudoliberals have ruined much of education. Real liberals
puke at their ideas.

When the PC crowd says that, they are being racist. They believe
that poor Juanito is incapable of learning (or succeeding) because
of his race, and therefore needs massive government support, and
failing that, lowered standards for illusive success.

If poor Juanito can't learn, but equally poor Mei-Li can, then
there is likely some cultural difference holding back Juanito,
and pushing forward Mei-Li.

In article , Roger Dodger
says...

(Robyn Kozierok) wrote in message
...


He just needs a proper work environment. A loading dock is not
proper for him. An academic classroom or lab is a proper one,
or at least better. He will have to factor in his sensitivity
when making a career choice. I could never be a fighter pilot,
or astronaut, because of my poor vision and reflexes.


Or maybe the loading dock *is* the proper environment, as he has a lot of brawn,
and ability to follow instructions, and certain minimal orgnizational abilities,
and not a lot of academic ability, *and* his coworkers had learned back in
school not to pull bullying **** - at about the same time they learned not to
say "******" and "spic" and "hey ****" inappropriately.

I mean, jees - what does it take to understand that abuse is inappropriate in
all environments.

I do get your point, really. IRL, as In Real Life, you makes the choices
according to the situation. But I really think personality type needs to get
the same associations as things like ethnic background. As in, no, you don't
expect someone to pull some switch to become someone they're not, and there's no
benefit to doing that besides.

Banty (who, to her mother's great disssaointment, just wasnt' that bubbly
cheerleader type, so she went for "statuesque and reserved", and got neither; OK
maybe she got statuesque :-)

Banty

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:28:41 -0600, toto
wrote:

snip

OTOH, employment at will means most people will eventually be
out of work as companies outsource their positions to foreign
workers who will do the job for less money. That is going on at
a great pace now and will continue as companies continue to
be oriented to the short term rather than the long term.

I am sure you, like all people worried about jobs being exported, drive
a vehicle manufactured by an American company.

-TOE

snip

(Roger Dodger) wrote:

Charles Soto wrote in message
...
(Roger Dodger) wrote:

Not all of these groupings promote knowledge. While the various
"races" are equal in intellect, the various ethnicities do not
value knowledge equally. The cultures of the Jews, Chinese, and
Koreans are the most pro-knowledge; while urban ghetto blacks
and rural whites are the least. Perhaps the worst example of
anti-intellectual school bullying is the oppression, within the
black community, of their own people of knowledge, for "acting
white". And the school admins do nothing about this - they
have a code of moral relativism.

Oh dear lord. You have a sheltered view of the world.

Afraid of the unvarnished non-PC truth?

Actually, you should read up on this.

What do you think I was arguing all the while.

The PC crowd says that "poor
Juanito can't learn," and therefore support the "dumbing down" being
spoken of. Pseudoliberals have ruined much of education. Real liberals
puke at their ideas.

When the PC crowd says that, they are being racist. They believe
that poor Juanito is incapable of learning (or succeeding) because
of his race, and therefore needs massive government support, and
failing that, lowered standards for illusive success.

No kidding. PC does not equal "liberal" or "progressive." In fact,
it's about as closed-minded as you can get.

Now, I'm not against "massive govt. support." I mean, WTF is govt. for,
if it's not for improving our lives (pursuit of happiness and all that
crap)? Put money where the need is.


If poor Juanito can't learn, but equally poor Mei-Li can, then
there is likely some cultural difference holding back Juanito,
and pushing forward Mei-Li.

Not necessarily. There could be institutional racism. It does exist.
Just be prepared to back it up when you pull out the yellow card.
Remember the Golden Rule: all generalizations are false!

Charles

--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"

("Meepmeep" is "rr," as in "roadrunner.")

Now, I'm not against "massive govt. support." I mean, WTF is govt. for,
if it's not for improving our lives (pursuit of happiness and all that
crap)? Put money where the need is.

Getting out of motivated people's way so they can do just that and
improve their lives through personal effort and determination instead of
having their efforts thwarted by governmental wealth redistribution
which saps all desire to achieve out of the average worker.