Previous  1  2  3  4

Oh, I hate these types of questions. lol I'm 34(although I'd love to say 25). My dad worked, my mom stayed at home. My daughter is 13. I'm a single parent who supports her child by herself (no support from her father) My daughter is a honour roll student.

My point, although maybe not clear, was that having children is a choice of the parents, not the gov't choice. Parents must take responsibility for their children. In every aspect of raising that child.

My mom grew up with a single parent. My grandfather died when my mom was 4. My grandmother worked full time. My mom was a latchkey kid. I was fortunate enough to grow up with the best parents in the world. My mom would not have been the parent she was if she'd been raised differently. My father had both parents. Grandpa worked, Grandma stayed at home and drank. She was a violent drunk. Tried to kill my dad when he was little. My dad never abused us in fact, I often claim (and fully believe) he was the best father in the world (although if you'd asked me this when I was 16 it'd have been a different story)

My point in the above is that 2 working parents, or 1 working parent, or divorced parents are not to blame for teen violence. Parenting skills or lack of are to blame. That is not gov't fault. That's the parents fault.

   

I'm not trying to start anything here, but read that and think for one minute before getting your fingers going on the keyboard.

You say parenting skills are to blame. Hmmm...with both parents at work, or a single parent that's working, who is going to guide these kids? Daycare? Babysitters? They are not the parents of the children, Twila, and they would be charged with assault. Unlike parents that have won in court on the issue of corporal punishment, a daycare worker or babysitter would be left with a record, and loss of employment if it ever leaked out that they swatted the behind of a misbehaving little hooligan.

Government is to blame, Twila. Not just taxing the crap out of people either. The YOA is a joke; that was passed by government, remember? The lower courts tell parents they cannot discipline their children; and who are the judges appointed by? It's a misconception people have anyway. There was a supreme court decision on corporal punishment; I'll try to find a link to support what I think is correct; if my memory serves me well.

One can still swat their kid's bum as long as it isn't assault i.e. repeatedly smacking them, using belts, spoons, etc.; I think you get the idea, but people are afraid because the cops would still charge the parents with assault, and that means paying a lawyer money over an unjust law, which would eventually be thrown out of court. Of course, this would depend on the judge, but since I see most judges as older men/women that probably had their behinds swatted on occassion, I see no reason why a judge would sentence a parent for being a parent; unless the parent was actually being abusive.

If the child doesn't listen to reasoning, doesn't get the idea when the privleges are taken away, there is only one other option left, and the state has no business in that whatsoever. The government shares a lot of the blame. Sorry, I disagree with you and your assessment of the situation, but that's the way I see it, and you cannot change my perspective.

   

Norad. I know your not trying to start anything. This is simply a discussion of ideas between people. I understand that.

I firmly believe and have stated that having children is not a right. It is upto the people to decide if they can provide for children. The gov't does not decide if you should have children so taxation of parents is irrelevant.

Besides which individuals with children do not pay as much in tax as a childless working couple.

I dislike the idea of blaming a third party who was not in the bedroom during the making of the children. It's a easy out to blame somebody or something else for how children turn out.

If they can't afford to have a parent stay at home or don't have a extended family to look after the kids then maybe having children is not an option.

   

I agree with that to some extent.



Isn't that what the government is there for? To blame them? lol Just kidding.

So, what are the causes in your view? I, for one, still think it's part of the government's doing, but not all of it, as you have pointed out.

I'm a conspiracy guy anyway, Twila. I think it's all part of the plan to conquer; to break down the human spirit; to become sheep so to speak. 4 groups of people that I don't trust in this world. Government, the military, secret service agencies, and the police. Notice how the last three are funded by the government? The greatest organized crime ring in the world!

Oh, on another note, here is the link to the supreme court ruling; parents have nothing to fear for swatting their child's behind as long as it is reasonable, and as I mentioned, no objects are used. Clickhere

   

Gov has nothing to do with it:

This is a continuing process. In 1977, in the midst of the Trudeau years, the government collected $7,044 from every working Canadian. By 1986, two years into Mulroney, the take was $14,593. By 1996, after three years of Martin, it reached $22,792.

. The Fraser Institute estimates the average B.C. family pays $3,500 in taxes for medical services. In neighbouring Washington State a family of four would pay Cdn$6,570 for similar coverage -- but it would also be paying about $12,000 less in taxes.

The Income Tax Act changes involve amongst other things provisions that child support payments can't be used by non-custodial fathers as a deduction from their taxable income anymore. Estimates of the extra annual tax revenue generated thereby range from Cdn$500 million to Cdn$1 billion. That is money that is being taken out of the mouths of the children of divorced or separated families.

All I am trying to show here is the gov is doing little to help and you may have been doing just great when you decided to have kids then along comes the gov and their crap and your economic situation takes a turn for the worse. You are now forced to work away from home perhaps or just gross hours to pay the bills. Your going to tell me the kids don't pick on the social and economic strain of this unforseen situation. Look around you it is happening everywhere.

   

Wow, that's pretty heavy stuff, Richard. Children definitely would pick up on that...and those pressures definitely have an effect on families. The cycle then continues...dad may hit mom, or mom may hit dad due to those pressures...they may just yell or throw things at each other. Little Johnny sees this and thinks it's all right to hit others, etc., etc., etc.

Do you think cartoons have anything to do with it? I don't understand advocacy groups. I watched Bugs Bunny a lot as a youngster, and I never thought, "Hey, dropping an anvil on someone's head looks like fun!" I even knew it was just a cartoon; it wasn't reality. I'm miffed that they don't show that on Bugs Bunny any longer. Yes, I still watch it once in a while...

   

I think that there is not 1 or 2 or even 10 causes for all children. I think it is a culmination of multiple causes and effects different children in different way. How's that for succinct? lol

I could be totally wrong but I do believe that parents aren't as close to their children as they'd like to believe. Worse still (and I periodically suffer from this myself) is the discomfort parents feel while discussing certain issues with their kids.

There are thousands and thousands of different people. A multitude of learning styles. A plethora of environmental stimulations and negative reinforcements. It's a bloody big stew.

To say that if parents had more money it would save the children seems way to easy a solution. The rich are as abusive and as disfunctional as any other economic group.

So...my solution is...............................................................I don't have one. (bit of a let down. no?)

   

I wasn't sdo much going for the hitting thing norad but I suppose thats apart of it but I was goning for the life is so stressed at home the kids do everything in their power to stay out of the house and you as a parent are to busy with your narrowing world to pay attention (parent thing like Twila was saying). Cause and effect. Bye the way norad I myself was always cheering for Willie Coyote was always hoping he'd get that darn bird...lol

You can see Twila that I don't totally dissagree with your (Parents) perspective. That is why I have quit the big money stress work and I am home alot more make alot less but I am alot more attentive to my family and we talk about everything.

Hope you all had a great holiday

   

Me too I also wanted to see Elmer Fudd bag that wabbit!



This I can see, and why it's so important to have after school programs where kids can learn teamwork and respect. This is a big problem; respect. You know, when I was growing up that was one of the things drilled into our heads; respect your elders. That is there, for some kids, but it seems that for a lot of them, it isn't.



Thanks for the sentiment, Richard! I hope you had a great holiday too!

Not really a let down, Twila because to be honest, I don't know what the heck the solution is. Part of it, I think, is violence in movies. I wish I could remember, but I think when I was a child there just wasn't as much of it as there seems to be now. Maybe I'm wrong with that assumption; maybe you or Richard remember? This comes down to a parenting issue though, but if the child, or children have a teenage babysitter that watches movies like that, the children could be exposed to it...yes? Even if the parents lay out rules, would a teen just smirk when they left and turn the TV on to some blow them up movies? I don't know...I just don't know.

Twila, do hope you enjoyed your holiday as well. I'm sure both you and Richard did with kids around. It certainly is worth it when you see their eyes opening the presents that they had hoped for!

   

thank you both Richard and Norad. I had an excellent Christmas! My sister announced that she is having a baby!

As to your question Norad about violence and tv. I have no idea if it alone affects a child negatively. Growing up my father watched all kinds of documentaries about WWI. WWII. Vietnam. Korea. He encouraged us to watch. He also was right there to explain the what. Why. How. When's of it all.

My family sat around the dinner table every night and talked. Nothing in our house was taboo. My father often played the devil's advocate and would choose the opposite side of all most every discussion. He preached about "walking a mile in a man's moccassins" before spouting off. I practice this with my daughter. She's allowed to watch just about anything. She chooses to avoid certain types of movies/books/ television . I'm there for all of it though. With an open mind and an open heart for discussion.

Course it hasn't always been easy. She use to get very upset when I'd say chicken breast. Or if I said it without the chicken part she'd go bright red. You should have seen her response to the word "penis" Ohh she was soooo funny. Who knew 8yrs olds could be such prudes? She still gets embarrassed over certain aspects of my honesty but I figure she'll eventually feel comfortable and she knows she can talk to me about anything.

   

Violence/sex on T.V. in the past was not covered or simply masked for what it was. Today, with disasters killing over 100,000, we can no longer live under the bed sheets. It is important for a parent to protect it's young and shield it from harm but they must not confuse that instinct with blinding children to the reality that is the society we live in. Ignorance breeds intolerance and we should always look to broaden our understanding of ourselves and others within reason. Gwynne writes and excellent essay on the end of war and how a pack of baboons can achieve peace, why then can't we?

   

Possibly because baboons don't feel the need to blame others for their faux cups? probably because baboons don't have entire ministry's dedicated to keeping them victims?

   

I think your right there Twila anything is open for discusion around here and nothing is off limits. Our kids have no problem talking about anything my oldest daughter even told us about her first kiss. They also know that around Nov 11 we will be watching tv and talking about what we watch.

   

What are you trying to say, Scape? I think you lost me on this....

I'm sure that when I was a youngster there just wasn't as much violence. I'll try to find some links to support this.

As for open discussion with children, I think that is different than watching violence on TV; in my mind anyway. An open discussion doesn't really have the graphics associated with it, unlike TV, movies, and video games, if you know what I mean.

For instance, I use to play Ghost Recon on the XBOX...yes, my child was there watching this to. I know, I shouldn't have done that. At the age of 4, my child started saying, "Did you kill him, daddy?" I was shocked! Needless to say, that game is gone now, and I don't play anything like that on my computer as well. Children shouldn't know things like that; not when their minds are still developing. Yes, the world is a nasty place, but they will learn that on their own in due time. There is no need for them to grow up so fast; let them be kids. I still have a few games for the XBOX that are violent, but I don't play those with my child around. So, that proved to me that watching things like this does affect a young mind.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4