> > Now I'm confused - what are we talking about? > > > Your statements were not specific to that situation but to > > all kids. I was > > addressing only the latter. > > > If we're talking about just that kid then I agree - I > > would have expected > > the educators to handle the situation alone. > > > But you were saying all five-year olds in all cases - > > that's just not true. > > But I did make the exception of situations involving weapons. And I > stand by my position of "all five-year olds in all cases" when no > weapons are involved.
Then you really can't use THIS instance to defend that stance. Also I truly hope you're never in a situation with a really problem kid. You'll attempt the "normal" solutions that will work (according to you) for "all five year olds". The situation will fall apart and you or the child (or both) will end up worse off than before. > > I'm not sure why the very idea of learning more about a > > situation and proven > > methods to address it should be seen as a bad thing? > > It's not. What's seen as a bad thing is the idea of mandatory training Forgive me if I misspoke - I never suggested or meant to suggest mandatory training. However people who feel unable to deal with a situation should feel unashamed about calling in help or taking such training. That's my root point: that working with certain kids is vastly easier (and safer) if you educate yourself. In fact this is the opposite of mandatory training: untrained people should have the ability to call on trained assistance. > nothing anybody can do about it. For a number of years I was convinced > that Huxley was right, and then we started the "War On Terrorism" and > now I'm convinced they were both right. You're right - it is a big stretch to bring that up here. ;^) > >> > Good call - but I'm sure you can see where some people > >> > see violent behavior and instantly think "police" even > >> > if that's not the technically correct choice. It's the > >> > same reason that people see a cat in a tree and think > >> > "fire department". > >> > >> Stupid people. > > > Again - that's insulting. Calling ANYBODY that reaches > > out for help "stupid" is just so wrong on so many levels. > > It wasn't intended to be quite that arbitrary... "people who call the > fire department to get a cat out of a tree" was my intent. Imo that > sort of activity is asinine. I agree - but that's the classic (if unrealistic) example. The core thing here is that (if things are going well) people look up to police, firemen, etc as "somebody that can help". Even when that help really doesn't fall in their purview. > > As much as I feel for you I simply don't see how this > > relates? > > People's first response to violence being to call the police. It's how > I ended up spending the night in jail for defending myself, and likely > colors my impression of people who are in my opinion quick to resort > to calling them. In spite of not being a criminal in any way (truth is > in most cases I'm too honest for my own good), I've never had a > pleasant experience that involved a police officer. As a result I'm > not very likely to think of them as "pals". I simply don't see _calling_ the police as the source of the problem as you do. In your case it definitely seemed to be the police reaction to the situation, not the fact that they were called in the first place. This falls into the very tricky area of appropriate response. This is debated (and will probably be debated forever) in all cases of domestic violence. There's no simple answer. > >> So yes, personal responsibility is a real issue for me. > > > Sorry - but I call bullshit. Taking a class, getting > > help and knowing your limitations are the height of > > personal responsibility. Allowing yourself to be > > overcome, plodding forward when you don't know what > > you're doing and living in lazy ignorance are all a > > shirking of personal responsibility. > > In a situation in which outside help is warranted or necessary I > agree. We apparently disagree about what constitutes that need, and/or > whether or not it is responsible to resort to outside forces > (particularly police) when it's not. > > Which isn't all that unusual. My opinions about things tend to be > fairly afield of the mainstream anyway. > > When the hurricanes were hitting Florida last year, the cops were > getting people off the beaches. They wouldn't allow surfers to go out > in the water because of the storms coming, which seems reasonable > enough to most folks. The police' reason for keeping them off the > beach was so they wouldn't risk their lives out looking for them... to > which my response was BS -- everybody knows a storm is coming, > everybody knows what the risks are -- if some surfer wants to piss > their life away, the cops shouldn't risk their own safety for them. > It's not the cop's responsibility to save them from themselves - they This is whole 'nother kettle of fish. It draws strands from the euthanasia debates, helmet laws and risky behavior ordinances against hobbies like base jumping. The simple fact is tho' that it IS the cops responsibility. We may wish it weren't (I agree with you there) but in today's society it is. Had people died on that cops beat he would have been blamed, pure and simple. But still - this doesn't have anything to do at all with whether or not all adults should be able to handle all five-year olds alone. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:155181 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
