News Firebomb Attack on German School

[Moonwalker]

School is a social event, you should NEVER forget this. You learn in school social behaviors, which you can't learn at home. And dealing with the other sex is part of this lesson.

You also learn social behaviors in schools that do practice gender segregation. I don't think those kids become for example more homosexually or incabable of getting a boyfriend/girlfriend in their free time than others. My sister has got a boyfriend for years including a baby for six month now, although she was on a grammar school for girls. That dealing with the other sex argument does not count at all I think.

 

[T.Neo]

They get an overstimulation by blood and thunder and by computer games.

Overstimulation? Huh? And btw, I said nothing about graphic visuals, just news of a plane crash. Don't see how one could be "overstimulated" by that.

Just like children and adults are different and have to be treated different and appropriate each.

Yes. But it isn't an excuse to treat children as subhumans.

I don't think those kids become for example more homosexually or incabable of getting a boyfriend/girlfriend in their free time than others.

Huh? There are clear problems behind not being able to get a partner, but what is wrong with someone being homosexual? Seriously?

That dealing with the other sex argument does not count at all I think.

A, it does and B, it has little to do with finding a partner- it's about operating equally as a citizen along with others of the opposite sex.

 

[Moonwalker]

Books are media. Just like radio. Just like TV. Just like computer games.

There is a huge difference especially between computer games and the rest, because the user turns into a person that does take audible and visible actions, controls certain situations that are intentional. The user can become a murder and have fun with it. He gets even honored.

There is no good or bad kind of media, how you use it makes it bad.

Right. That's exactly the point. How commercial TV station do use TV makes it very bad. That's why I call for a certain control (not censorship, but people will misuse the word anyway).

You can have the library of Alexandria of aviation books and still not get smarter from it.

And not evil as well.

---------- Post added at 08:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

But it isn't an excuse to treat children as subhumans.

Nor is it a reason to treat them like full-value adults and give them any freedom they want.

Huh? There are clear problems behind not being able to get a partner, but what is wrong with someone being homosexual? Seriously?

There is nothing wrong. But it's a usual preconception that pupils who visit schools that practice gender gender segregation become homosexual but also become unable to find a partner. All I know that visited such schools are either married of in love. They do not have more or less probelsm like "normal" pupils.

Operating equally as a citizen along with others of the opposite sex does happen anyway after school. It does not have to take place within school. You just have a very few and actually short breaks. The rest of the daily time at schools is about listening, concentrating and learning. It does not have a lot to do with the other sex.

 

[Urwumpe]

Right. That's exactly the point. How commercial TV station do use TV makes it very bad. That's why I call for a certain control (not censorship, but people will misuse the word anyway).

Then don't watch it. I find the public broadcasters sometimes even worse in their programming, on some days you can't even watch Phoenix without vomiting.

That is why "Löwenzahn" was so subversive - it encouraged turning the TV off.:lol: That was exactly the kind of media competence you need. Deciding when to watch and when to not watch.

 

[T.Neo]

Nor is it a reason to treat them like full-value adults and give them any freedom they want.

Full-value adults? Huh?
Treating children as anything other then equals is treating them as subhumans.
Which is wrong. Any human should be allowed to have any freedom they want, within reason.

It does not have to take place within school.

No, but if it were to it would be an advantage.

You just have a very few and actually short breaks.

A few very short breaks is better then nothing.

The rest of the daily time at schools is about listening, concentrating and learning.

You mean ignoring, getting distracted and attempting to complete bothersome nonsense?

It does not have a lot to do with the other sex.

Not a "lot", no, but it does have something to do with the opposite sex if you're in a co-ed environment, which is, again, better then nothing.

 

[Ghostrider]

There is a huge difference especially between computer games and the rest, because the user turns into a person that does take audible and visible actions, controls certain situations that are intentional. The user can become a murder and have fun with it. He gets even honored.

We did this stuff when Pong was a glimmer in Allan Alcom's eye: it was called "cops and robbers", "cowboy and indians" and generally "playing war". It was lots of fun. When you grow up they call them "live RPGs". Mankind simulated stuff way before computers, especially the violent stuff because, let's face it, being nice is boring. Even Winnie the Pooh would go mad if he were real.

Nor is it a reason to treat them like full-value adults and give them any freedom they want.

Freedom is not "given", it's earned.

 

[Hielor]

All of those "distractions" exist in the outside world. How are we preparing children for our society if we keep them from learning anything about it until they're out of school?

Men and women ARE mixed in the rest of the world. There ARE rich and poor people in the rest of the world. People DO wear whatever they want in the rest of the world.

Yes, that's nice, but the purpose of our schools is to teach students about the intellectual things, not the social things. It's the job of the parents to teach the students about the social things. Having those things in schools distracts from learning the things that schools are there to teach.

But if you would take the schooling aspect really serious, a mixed gender school should have no problems. Gender segregation only creates the same problems in concentrated form outside school. It is a matter of discipline. I would even go so far to claim, that gender segregation makes it impossible for teaching "proper" gender specific behavior and gender interaction.

Again, that's the job of the parents, not the schools. Perhaps there should be entirely separate schools where you learn those sorts of things, without having it distract from the entire purpose of schools.

School is a social event, you should NEVER forget this. You learn in school social behaviors, which you can't learn at home. And dealing with the other sex is part of this lesson.

Indeed, and many students learn how to be bullied and ostracized because their parents aren't rich, or feel inferior because they don't have a boyfriend. Such things can make it very difficult for them to learn the material that they're in school to learn.

Beyond the earliest grade levels, teaching social interactions is not the primary purpose of the schooling system. Having (very often negative) social interactions at school distracts from the primary purpose and can make for a very difficult time learning the material.

Look at Japan--it is extremely common for students there to have uniforms and be gender-separated, and Japan has arguably one of the world's most successful primary education systems.

---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Full-value adults? Huh?
Treating children as anything other then equals is treating them as subhumans.
Which is wrong. Any human should be allowed to have any freedom they want, within reason.

You know, you're right.

We should allow toddlers to drink, smoke, and drive cars.

 

[Urwumpe]

Indeed, and many students learn how to be bullied and ostracized because their parents aren't rich, or feel inferior because they don't have a boyfriend. Such things can make it very difficult for them to learn the material that they're in school to learn.

And? Do you think this will not happen outside school? For example later at work? Can you cry to mommy if you are bullied at work for being from the wrong side of the road?

You can blame parents for a lot of things, but you also have to blame teachers for concentrating ONLY on the subjects and not on the social stuff - which is also teaching how to learn.

 

[Moonwalker]

Treating children as anything other then equals is treating them as subhumans.
Which is wrong. Any human should be allowed to have any freedom they want, within reason.

You obviously don't seem to be able to realize the differences bewteen childhood and being adult. This is what had caused the stepless (and inhuman) transition bewteen childhood and being adult during the middle ages: being child until as soon as you can talk and walk, then being adult.

 

[Urwumpe]

You know, you're right.

We should allow toddlers to drink, smoke, and drive cars.

Within reason. Drinking and smoking shouldn't be allowed for adults either, and driving cars is not permitted for many adults out of VERY good reasons (one of them is a Golf GTD, smeared over 50m of a small park last evening, when the young driver lost control at 140 km/h inside the city)

But for example treating my daughter as sane intelligent person is working pretty well without problems (At least most of the time. Sometimes you are reminded that she does not know what you know. For example that a mouse cable has a function other than limiting the movement). That she selected football and Kung Fu as her school activities just shows that she can't be that stupid.

Of course kids aren't omnipotent and perfectly reasonable beings. Even adults aren't it.

---------- Post added at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------

You obviously don't seem to be able to realize the differences bewteen childhood and being adult. This is what had caused the stepless (and inhuman) transition bewteen childhood and being adult during the middle ages: being child until as soon as you can talk and walk, then being adult.

Good joke. Do you get your knowledge about the middle ages and medieval social standards from aviation books or from cheap love stories in pseudo-historical settings?

Using the medieval definition of adulthood : How adult are you?

 

[Moonwalker]

To drink, smoke, and drive cars? Nah. That's for beginners only. Make toddlers legally competent. Let them decide to have sex even with persons that are well beyond the 18, well of course after a night in the disco. Drive cars? Pah. What about a 747? Let them be doctor, let them chop up bodies and why not even send to Afghanistan as soldiers? Why not even let them handle the Wall Street?

Children are just like adults and should be treated like them, of course. Now I understand. We were all wrong since the middle ages. How could I miss that all the years.

I am like Santa. Please donate a sleigh and a beard...

 

[Hielor]

And? Do you think this will not happen outside school? For example later at work? Can you cry to mommy if you are bullied at work for being from the wrong side of the road?

You can blame parents for a lot of things, but you also have to blame teachers for concentrating ONLY on the subjects and not on the social stuff - which is also teaching how to learn.

Yes, and adults are significantly more capable of dealing with negativity directed at them then children are.

Teachers don't focus on the social stuff because that's not their job. Moreover, if schools started teaching students the "social stuff," parents would complain about the government exceeding its mandate in the education of their children.

 

[Moonwalker]

Do you get your knowledge about the middle ages and medieval social standards from aviation books or from cheap love stories in pseudo-historical settings?

We comprehend childhood as a separate stage of life only since the 16th/17th century. Before, we did not treat children much different than adults. No news, no aviation books, no cheap love stories. Well known facts, that you learn in school as long as you are not basically involved in learning social behaviour with the other gender and miss something meanwhile

Saying that children should be treated like adults actualy is quite a pubertal remark to be honest.

 

[Urwumpe]

We comprehend childhood as a separate stage of life only since the 16th/17th century. Before, we did not treat children much different than adults. No news, no aviation books, no cheap love stories. Well known facts, that you learn in school as long as you are not basically involved in learning social behaviour with the other gender and miss something meanwhile

And WHEN was the word childhood created first? Think a moment longer, before you answer.

Childhood and "coming of age" or adolescence is WAY older than the 16th century. And you need a high level of ignorance to older sources to say it was unknown before and completely different then.

Saying that children should be treated like adults actualy is quite a pubertal remark to be honest.

"Treating children like children" will always lead to the question, how to treat somebody like children. And what is proposed here, is often in a way, how I wouldn't even treat animals. Children are no robots, pension fund or decoration.

------------

To shorten things as the night gets shorter:

Philippe Aries was the guy who coined your claim that "there was no childhood and children had been treated as mini-adults". In 1961. As the first Historician at all to deal with the topic. But that did not make his claims more right.

A pretty detailed criticism of his methods can be found here:

http://www.ehs.org.uk/society/pdfs/Hendrick%2015a.pdf

Aries relied mostly on paintings. Dressing children as adults in paintings was interpreted as children had been treated as mini-adults. But Aries failed to check against already then available evidence to check his hypothesis against. The wide-spread existence of special children clothing in the past 2500 years for example.

The key problem:
Unlike women, black people, and the working class, children are not in a position either to write their own history, or to ask awkward questions of those who exercise power and control over them. Nor do they have a political movement to raise public consciousness of their condition and their grievances.

 

[insanity]

Yes, and adults are significantly more capable of dealing with negativity directed at them then children are.

Teachers don't focus on the social stuff because that's not their job. Moreover, if schools started teaching students the "social stuff," parents would complain about the government exceeding its mandate in the education of their children.

I think you're right in that a teacher's job is to focus on the academic education of children, but they assume a natural responsibility to help socialize the kids they teach. Ideally our teachers should be role models to their kids, people who have dedicated their lives to education and have worked hard on it deserve nothing less than the respect of their classroom. As such they have a duty to help instill positive social and ethical values in their kids.

For instance, when I was a student teacher for middle school kids I taught basic Constitutional law. At the same time, the students constantly came up to me asking if I could talk to them about their lives, social problems, future goals etc.. I'd like to think that giving the advice I gave (work hard, find something that makes you happy, never go to the University of Oregon) made a bit of difference.

Besides we both know that gender segregation has nothing to do with academic success. It is all about how cultures value their education systems. Japanese culture has a certain reverence for teachers and doing good in school. American culture often encourages slacking off and getting by.

Lastly, I don't buy the claim that the media is resposnible for the debasement of cultural life in the Western World. Sure, the media has become ultraviolent and massively stupid; but we're all responsible for it. People gobble that stuff up all day and allow their kids to watch it without context. What are kids to think when their own parents watch cable news and reality tv and see people screaming at each other as a way of normal conversation except that that must be how debate is carried out? People are all to eager to blame television when the problem is systemic and embedded in our culture.

 

[tblaxland]

To drink, smoke, and drive cars? Nah. That's for beginners only. Make toddlers legally competent. Let them decide to have sex even with persons that are well beyond the 18, well of course after a night in the disco. Drive cars? Pah. What about a 747? Let them be doctor, let them chop up bodies and why not even send to Afghanistan as soldiers? Why not even let them handle the Wall Street?

Children are just like adults and should be treated like them, of course. Now I understand. We were all wrong since the middle ages. How could I miss that all the years.

The intent of "treating children as adults" is not to suggest that they should have greater freedoms than adults, as you have implied above. There are already restrictions on who can drive, fly, etc (on both adults and children) and with good reason. "Treating children as adults" is more about treating them with the same level of basic respect as deserved by any other human, regardless of age.

 

[Moonwalker]

Childhood and "coming of age" or adolescence is WAY older than the 16th century. And you need a high level of ignorance to older sources to say it was unknown before and completely different then.

Ah, so we now enter the famous play of words.

Well, the invention of the word "Childhood" does not take away the fact that it initially was used to descripe the period of being unable to walk and talk. It was used to descripe the period of being dependent. Unable to live on its own. As soon as children could walk and talk, they were treated like adults and not rarely even treated as replaceable cattle. Education was not something for children just as for the majority of non-aristocratic people.

"Treating children like children" will always lead to the question, how to treat somebody like children. And what is proposed here, is often in a way, how I wouldn't even treat animals.

Children that wear school uniforms are not treated like animals.

To allow children to drink and smoke for example, just like because adults also do so, is something you even don't do with animals. It's the same nonsense arguments like making drugs legally.

Children are no robots, pension fund or decoration.

and they are not adult as well. They are young humans. Their brain is in a remarkable change prior and during puberty, so their behaviour and personality is. There is no joke or arbitrariness that children are not legally competent, able to fly a Boeing 747 and do lots of other things like for example also to decide to become a porn star to be more serious now.

By the way: who is going to fund your back once you should get ill and unable to work in future? Who is the future of a country/system? For sure you won't get paid by lazy baggy pants wearer because they have been handled like adults by their parents...

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 12:04 AM ---------- Previous post was 09-17-2009 at 11:40 PM ----------

The intent of "treating children as adults" is not to suggest that they should have greater freedoms than adults, as you have implied above. There are already restrictions on who can drive, fly, etc (on both adults and children) and with good reason. "Treating children as adults" is more about treating them with the same level of basic respect as deserved by any other human, regardless of age.

The initial statements that caused the childhood-adult debate was a reply on not watching TV uncontrolled which implied that children should be as free as adults, and that their mental durability is underestimated. Since then, some try to argument that children are adult, which they are definately not. Which is also the reason why there is no restrictions on certain children of flying and driving, but generally restrictionson on children of flying and driving. That does not have anything to do with restrictions on certain adults for certain reasons. There is a difference between chidren and adults, no matter if they have to be treated with the same level of respect as deserved by any other human.

 

[tblaxland]

They are young humans.

Bingo! And they deserve the appropriate respect.

There is no joke or arbitrariness that children are not legally competent, able to fly a Boeing 747 and do lots of other things like for example also to decide to become a porn star to be more serious now.

I've just reread this entire thread, and no-one is suggesting that children should be allowed to do such things.

By the way: who is going to fund your back once you should get ill and unable to work in future? Who is the future of a country/system? For sure you won't get paid by lazy baggy pants wearer because they have been handled like adults by their parents...

Treating children with respect and giving them appropriate freedoms does not imply they will be "lazy baggy pants wearers"*. How do you think children will learn to treat others with respect if they are not shown respect by their elders?

* BTW, unnecessarily restricting their freedom and denigrating their worth as human beings is a good way to ensure that they will become such.

 

[Moonwalker]

Bingo! And they deserve the appropriate respect.

Which does not include being able/allowed to do anything adults do, especially watching TV uncontrolled, smoking and drinking, to remain within this threat.

I've just reread this entire thread, and no-one is suggesting that children should be allowed to do such things.

Airplanes and other things just was my examples as a result of watching TV uncontrolled, smoking, drinking and driving, which was suggested/discussed within this threat.

Treating children with respect and giving them appropriate freedoms does not imply they will be "lazy baggy pants wearers"*. How do you think children will learn to treat others with respect if they are not shown respect by their elders?

Baggy pants wearers who are treated like adults by their parents, because they don't take much care and think "my kid is adult already", are quite often mouthy on the street. They don't even seem to know respect.

* BTW, unnecessarily restricting their freedom and denigrating their worth as human beings is a good way to ensure that they will become such.

Not being allowed to watch TV uncontrolled, drink, drive, smoke and do other things, is not unnecessarily restricting their freedom. It is taking proper care.

---------- Post added at 02:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 AM ----------

Freedom is not a thing that is endlessly and comes without duties, just because children have to get the same respect as adults.

Initially I was talking about school uniforms and gender segregation, which does have nothing to do with restricting freedom. School is no freedom but even compulsory and a right at the same time that comes with duties. That's where discipline already starts. School uniforms and gender segregation is another discipline. Many parents chose it. Parents have parental authority, not children. Children, regardless of the fact that they have to get the same respect as any human, don't have the same amount of freedom adults have. That's not a restriction. That's a part of growing up, to learn and to realize that life is about rights and duties, and not just about freedom at any time and any place even adults don't have.

Not to allow to eat as many chips an sweets and consuming as much TV and even cigarettes and alcohol, is not restricting freedom. It is taking proper care. And also, we are talking about children, not about teens. We are talking about humans that are usually below 14 years old.

 

[tblaxland]

Which does not include being able/allowed to do anything adults do, especially watching TV uncontrolled, smoking and drinking, to remain within this threat.

I agree.

Baggy pants wearers who are treated like adults by their parents, because they don't take much care and think "my kid is adult already", are quite often mouthy on the street. They don't even seem to know respect.

That is more to do with lack of discipline than anything else. Discipline is required for adults and children alike. Treating children with due respect (ie, the same basic respect as any normal adult deserves) does not mean they should not be disciplined by their parents.

Not being allowed to watch TV uncontrolled, drink, drive, smoke and do other things, is not unnecessarily restricting their freedom. It is taking proper care.

Agreed, as it is proper care for adults too. The freedom to do things things should be matched to the skills and maturity of the individual.

Freedom is not a thing that is endlessly and comes without duties, just because children have to get the same respect as adults.

I agree.

School uniforms and gender segregation is another discipline.

Yes it is a form of discipline, but one that is superfluous. It is much better to focus on teaching kids to respect one another without such artificial normalisers.

Children, regardless of the fact that they have to get the same respect as any human, don't have the same amount of freedom adults have. That's not a restriction. That's a part of growing up, to learn and to realize that life is about rights and duties, and not just about freedom at any time and any place even adults don't have.

It is a restriction, but equally it is part of growing up. I agree that some restrictions are necessary but you need to be careful that the restrictions serve an educational purpose (social, emotional, acedemic, etc). Restrictions that are put in place purely for the purpose of demonstrating authority (parental or institutional) are superfluous, show disrespect to those on the receiving end, and inevitably backfire. School uniforms just a fairly mild symptom of authoritarian educational institutions.

Not to allow to eat as many chips an sweets and consuming as much TV and even cigarettes and alcohol, is not restricting freedom. It is taking proper care.

Technically, they are restrictions, but ones that serve a purpose and are therefore appropriate.