Steve
Mostly Harmless
The thread had drifted somewhat from the OP here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ng-my-hands-up-and-walking-away-from-this-job
Considering the overall tone and somber nature of that thread, I just thought that it would be more respectful to pull any conversations regarding crime, crime prevention and such out and move it over here to the study.
I understand that "respect starts at home" is a common turn of phrase, but in this case it is, I believe, a dangerous one. Dangerous because it fails to confront the reality that many of the kids who grow up to become criminals are doing so precisely because they have no home, or their home is broken in some fundamental manner.
Point is that I agree we need to address the issue early. But, I would disagree that parenting is the issue we need to be addressing. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were great parents? Of course, that would make things a lot easier, and parenting classes could certainly help. But that fails to address the cycle of poverty and the surrogate family that gangs and criminal organizations provide to children who are otherwise lacking a stable home life.
Before we can solve the issue, we, as a society, have to own the problem. In other words, if "we" don't like that the kids down the road are joining gangs and committing crimes, "we" need to accept responsibility for the kids who are at risk of becoming the next recruits. Obviously, funding and supporting the LEO who are dealing with the criminals is a part of the equation. But, as you say, we have to start with the kids.
Here's another lame metaphor. Anyone here have pets? Have to deal with fleas? For decades (literally), I had nary a flea in my house. Then I brought home a cat. She's lovable, but she had fleas. Okay, so cutting to the chase, to deal with you have to eliminate the production of fleas. Killing the fleas that are on the animals only addresses the symptom. To solve the problem, you have to kill the eggs, too. You have to, in other words, address the root issue. And, of course, while you are addressing the issue, you ALSO have to address the symptom.
We have a lot of issues, but the symptom is preventable crime.
Considering the overall tone and somber nature of that thread, I just thought that it would be more respectful to pull any conversations regarding crime, crime prevention and such out and move it over here to the study.
Jackpot questions right there. I would take it back a little further and say that I agree with you in that it has to start with KIDS. Does it have to start at home? Well, great if the kids have a "home," but it sets us ("us" meaning society at large) up for failure because it depends upon something that we already know millions of kids don't have: a home. And if we open that up to include kids who do have a "home," but for whom the home better resembles Thunderdome than a nurturing, safe place for kids to learn to become productive, healthy, and happy members of adult society.No doubt we can do better. But what is better? How do we prevent having to put people in jail? My two cents is that it has to start in the home. Kids have to be taught respect.
I understand that "respect starts at home" is a common turn of phrase, but in this case it is, I believe, a dangerous one. Dangerous because it fails to confront the reality that many of the kids who grow up to become criminals are doing so precisely because they have no home, or their home is broken in some fundamental manner.
Point is that I agree we need to address the issue early. But, I would disagree that parenting is the issue we need to be addressing. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were great parents? Of course, that would make things a lot easier, and parenting classes could certainly help. But that fails to address the cycle of poverty and the surrogate family that gangs and criminal organizations provide to children who are otherwise lacking a stable home life.
Respect is an ideal, and my personal opinion is that it isn't "teachable." Like crime, "respect" is a symptom, as is its absence.Respect for their home, their teachers, their neighbors, others' property, law. We don't do that anymore from what I see. Kids are taught be TV programs and other kids that it is OK to do only what 'you' want to do. Snide or flat out disrespect to parents or teachers is OK since they don't have a clue about anything important, especially the all-knowing youth of today.
Before we can solve the issue, we, as a society, have to own the problem. In other words, if "we" don't like that the kids down the road are joining gangs and committing crimes, "we" need to accept responsibility for the kids who are at risk of becoming the next recruits. Obviously, funding and supporting the LEO who are dealing with the criminals is a part of the equation. But, as you say, we have to start with the kids.
Here's another lame metaphor. Anyone here have pets? Have to deal with fleas? For decades (literally), I had nary a flea in my house. Then I brought home a cat. She's lovable, but she had fleas. Okay, so cutting to the chase, to deal with you have to eliminate the production of fleas. Killing the fleas that are on the animals only addresses the symptom. To solve the problem, you have to kill the eggs, too. You have to, in other words, address the root issue. And, of course, while you are addressing the issue, you ALSO have to address the symptom.
We have a lot of issues, but the symptom is preventable crime.
I'm not sure what you're implying here. Crime, overall, as in nationally. I don't know where you live or have lived.Also, I salute you. How wonderful to live where it is safer than any other time in history. That hasn't been my experience, sorry to say. I guess we have lived on different streets.
Children aren't weeds in the metaphor. Crime is the weed. But metaphors are never perfect.Strange! Part of the things I tagged to reply to above in my previous thread, seem to have been added here. I didn't retag them so I don't know why.
But since I am again replying, may I suggest the metaphor of dandelions is a little flawed. If you were pulling them out of your yard and isolating them somewhere they could not have contact with your lawn or anyone elses, but were otherwise taken care of; maybe. But you are killing them in your metaphor, not what I think you want as a solution for criminals, no matter their offense?
Again the added tagged items from both posts. At least by going to advanced I saw them and took them out.