Should we force society to change its unhealthy standards?

Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: Society has very unhealthy standards even in the psychological community. Its sad since people are not allowed to feel safe or freely express themselves since the standard is all that matters. Society standards though are very blind to how the world really is. Society believes one must depend on others, must love friends, must love family and if you don't you are a horrible person. One must have tons of friends and have them at all costs. It does not matter if those friends are bad people, if they abuse you, if they rape you, if they hurt you. The only requirement is have friends or you are a psychopath. For children we tell them to go to school and get good grades but if they learn ahead of the curb we tell them they are bad and children are not suppose to be like little adults, it shows issues. We force children to depend on parents till the age of 24 and you are not really allowed to do anything without parental consent, parental assistance.
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: Poin Dexter.. I don't know where you "get" your "standards of society" from but I think you are a little warped. Let's start at the bottom and go up: Where do you get the idea that society requires you to rely on parents until 24 when the age of consent is 18. My kids were out of the house, as well as I, at age 18. I enlisted in the military while still in high school, graduated, then went on active dury. I didnt need parental consent nor their assistance to do what i did. By the way, I spent 20 yrs servingl

As far as you so called requirement to have friends; or be a psychopath. I had 3 friends in all of high school. I had no friends, but acquaintencis, in there and as soon as i retired or moved they were gone. As for now, I have no friends and i prefer it that way. Society doesnt require that you have friends.

I not only feel the way I want about issuess but i freely express my opinion about them. It may not be liked by society, but i could care less.

Lastly, I don't depend on anyone, if I am doing something and someone offers to help, I will gladly accept the help, but don't expect me to repay you; i may and then again I may not.

If all this makes me a horrible persin in the society's eyes, well then I guess i suck as part of society. But if people don't want to take me as they see me for who/what I am, then fuck society.
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: @Her Daddy you are blind to how society works but you refusing to acknowledge it does not say anything about me, it says more about you. Clearly you never had children or you would understand how Fasfa works but I guess not everyone has kids so this might not make a major impact on everyone. However Fasfa and other sort of assistances are not the only things which force one to depend on parents. Its very hard to become "Independent" based on "Fasfa". Most people dont meet the requirements and if you dont meet any of the others you must wait till age 24.

2.Friends, that is great for you but its not really reluvant to anything. Society generally expects you to have friends and if a child is doing good in class but doesnt have a lot of freinds in school they will be harrased and told "They need more". School cant ever say "Good job you got good grades" you also have to have freinds while you do it. However since highschool generally has really screwed up priorities (student culture not teachers) I think in some cases its much better to simply not have freinds.

3.The fact you say society does not like your opinion is admitting there is a problem but you are choosing to ignore it. I am talking about the current STANDARDS of society. If you dont agree or follow the standards Society will try and make you conform, pretending there is no standard, makes you willfully ignorant but some people choose that. It helps them live in a delusion but I guess that defense is more peaceful for people who dont like reality.

4.Again you depending on someone really is not relevant at all to this discussion. Its the way everything is set up which forces people to rely on each other, but there is nothing saying those around you are nesscarly that reliable.
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: Yes I do have children, 3 are grown with families of their own and I have 3 step kids living at home.
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: So how dont you know about things like FAFSA? This forces us to depend on parents for income, and at 18 you should be able to get your own stupid loan. Why does a 18-year-old have to put mom and dad's income? Isn't that a little ridiculous?
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: first of all FAFSA is not necessarily for loans, it is also used to determine how much the government can give you for education.. At 18, most kids these days don't know their ass from a whole in the ground. Schools don't teach them what they need to know to live in the world. They have not worked for any substantial period of time and therefore have to income background to base loans and grants on, therefore they use the income of the parents.
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: Daddy, you might not realize but that includes LOAN, GRANTS and SCHOLARSHIPS. That is alls included in "What you qualify for school". The fact you dont know that includes "Loans" is surprising. Also the fact you think 18 year olds are stupid, does not change they are adults. If you think a 18 year old should live with parents till 24, then why are parents allowed to kick them out? Can you explain that one? Also no HS hasnt, but if you are a good parent you also might pick up some of the slack. Like teaching your child how to fill out taxes. Of course some of these essential skills should be taught at HS as we spend taxes on these worthless babysitting foundations but if you really think HS is that worthless, why wouldn't you teach some basic life skills to your children yourself?
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: The fact you don't want your child growing up at all sounds more like a control issue on your part. A child is legally an adult at 18, A child can work full hours at 18, a child can be kicked out at 18, a child can live on their own at 18, A child can be convicted as an ADULT at 18. Given all this why would you still count them under mom and dads income? They are legally NO LONGER MOM AND DADS ISSUE. Either they are adults at 18 legally, or they are not legally adults at 18. This half way crap is nonsense!
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: first of all FAFSA is not necessarily for loans, it is also used to determine how much the government can give you for education. THIS IS FIRST SENTENCE OF MY LAST REMARK
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: Fasfa includes loans.
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: First of all i didnt say all 18 yr olds were stupid, just some of them, and a majority of those, didnt learn anything becuz they didnt want to. Yes an 18 yr old is an adult, i said that in my first remark. There is no law that states that an 18yr old must stay with their parents until they are 24. As for a child being charged as an adult at 18, an 18 yr is not a child any longer, and if the crime that a child does commit is a capital offense, the a child of lesser age can be charged as an adult. Yes I agree with you that parents should be teaching their kids at home as well. But again, a child will only learn what a child wants to, especially at 17 or 18 yrs old/
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: you apparently dont understand english, i didnt say that it was not for loans... in simple english language, the FAFSA is exactly what you said it was for... "not necessarily" means that it is used for loans, but not just loans or grants or scholarships...
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: Your bias against all 18 year old does not help your case. The fact of the matter is they are treated like adults in every other way until we come to assistance programs like Fasfa. It really makes no sense to take away every right protecting a legal child, yet forcing them to follow the rules a child would and add parents on financial paperwork. A child learns what you teach them. If the school and parents refuse to teach the child anything they either learn themselves or from other sources. In some cases a child is smart and figure out how to take care of themselves and other on thier own, but even the smartest child needs SOME guidance.
7 years ago Report
0
Her Daddy
Her Daddy: and again, i agree with you on everything you say, with the exception of being biased against all 18 yr olds... that is total bullshit... i know some very smart 18 yr olds and would rely on them before i would some adults. furthermore, if "an 18 yrs old child" has been living on their own, then their parents income IS NOT included on the form, only the 18yr old's
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: It is on Fasfa, even if you dont like it. If you dont add it, you are lying but if you managed to somehow get away with that, not like I going to go search you down and report it. If you want a list of things that make you independent on the Fasfa you can look it up. Sorry but being 18 and not living with mom and dad is sadly not one of the criteria as much as you want it to be. I mean that would be logical, but you know government rulings are not always reasonable.

Independent-
You joined the Us Military
You are or ever was an orphan of state
The government ever taken you from parents
You are a foster child
You are 24
You are a graduate(I think that means 2 years of college)
You were emancipated before 18
Married
Have a child dependent
Have a dependent you care for(In home care)

Dependent
Under the age of 24
Never joined military
Never emancipated
Never was taken from parents by government
Not an orphan or even in foster care
Not in a graduate program
Never married
Do not have any child dependent
are not part of in home care program

The people who sign you up for school and Fasfa explain this too.

A lot of people assume 18 or 18 with job makes a child independent but that is a huge misconception. Also if we say "Well 18-year-olds live with Parents, and we are going to count the parents income" Why is there no law saying the parent also must pay. We are going under the assumption you deserve less since your parents will pay. Legally under this then THE PARENTS SHOULD PARTIALLY PAY FOR THE CHILDS COLLEGE.


(Edited by Wonderful Wally)
7 years ago Report
0
wildrose62
wildrose62: I'd just like to jump in here if I may. The worthless babysitting foundations mentioned above are bound by restrictions called syllabi. We have no say in what is taught, and little say in which classes a child takes. That's not our job - that's the parents' job. So if you child comes to school and takes every lame, dumbed-down course they can to avoid hard work in the academic subjects that is, again, not our fault. You, as a parent, sign off on your child's subject choices. And if, in your role as parent, you want your child to study how to do their taxes, that's available- in Business Studies, in Mathematics courses, and in Life Skills. If you are unaware of this, then you have done your child a disservice by not researching the content of each course. I am not your child's parent. I am the person who is required to teach them the subjects that you have allowed them to take.
Also, as for the requirement of having to support your unemployed child until they are 24, if you have the income to do so, could you explain to me why it would be the responsibility of other people to do so? It was your choice to have a child, and your responsibility as a parent to support them until they are able to support themselves. It is not the duty of taxpayers to sacrifice their income to do that. The age of 24 (25 in some countries) is set as a reasonable age by which a young person is expected to have completed their tertiary education. It has nothing to do with adulthood, or maturity. Many people are earning by that age, the average tertiary student has graduated.
Taxpayers contribute large amounts of money to provide a public education for your child until the end of high school. Thirteen years. In my country, the cost to taxpayers for each year of a single secondary students' education is $18000. Imagine if you had to pay that yourself. Be grateful that people on higher incomes have sacrificed some of their earnings to help you educate your child. Many of those people did not get to go onto higher education themselves. Why should they pay so your child can go?
If you don't want to help your child, if you don't want to take the responsibility for their support, then you shouldn't have become a parent.
Oh, and just before you bother asking, yes, I did pay for my children's tertiary educations - all three of them. Two Bachelor degrees, one with Honours, several diploma courses.... a total high enough to buy a nice house. Why? Because that's what responsible parents do.

7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: @Wildrose By law your children have to go to school. So if schools are dangerous, and are not teaching your children, that is kind of on the government isnt it? Parents dont really have a choice. We have not till recent years come out with free home school programs. So a child who parents are not super well off are forced to put them in public school.
(Edited by Wonderful Wally)
7 years ago Report
0
wildrose62
wildrose62: Parents do have a choice. They can take their child out of public education and pay for private education if they think schools are dangerous. They can pay for private tutors. Have you ever tried to teach anyone? Do you realise how undisciplined many children are and how bound teachers are by law in how they can deal with that lack of discipline? We mollycoddle spoiled children who have never heard the word "no", who refuse to do their work and are supported in this by parents who tell them they don't have to if they don't want to. Maybe we should change education by starting at conception - giving tests to parents to see if they'll be good parents before they're allowed to conceive, and sterilising the irresponsible ones before they're allowed to breed another generation of uncontrollable brats.
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: That is assuming that all parents can pay for private school which they actually can afford private or afford for one parent to quit work in order to teach a child. Its nice if you have all that money to pay for private school but if your parents haven't, you probably went to public school.
7 years ago Report
0
wildrose62
wildrose62: Oh, and, by the way, a good teacher will never punish a child who is gifted and works ahead of the pack... it is encouraged. It is why they scrapped the minimum age requirements for advancement and allow students to skip grades.
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: It doesn't mean that there are not often policies against it in public school.
7 years ago Report
0
wildrose62
wildrose62: Well Poin, that's choice too - if you want that kind of an education for your children, then you should only have as many children as you can afford to send to those schools. My children went to public school, and were taught to pay attention and to be respectful to their teachers, to do their homework and to do their best at all times. Once in university, they again worked hard, applied for scholarships and got them on merit, and were able to get great jobs at the end. They were taught at home and at school to have a work ethic. You teach that by example. Again, that is part of parenting. I was not super well off - I'm a single parent on a relief teacher wage.... but we managed.
7 years ago Report
0
wildrose62
wildrose62: Poin, there are no such policies - I work in a public school.
7 years ago Report
0
Wonderful Wally
Wonderful Wally: I do agree parents should only have children they are willing or able to pay for.

If your only supporting point is going to be "You teach" another point would be "I went to school" which is on equal grounds.

Here are some actual policies that have existed in multiple schools I went to. Its not just one either, this seems to be a trend. Schools often will have policies which prevent kids from graduating early or taking classes at a quicker pace than the rest of the student. One such requirement is you have to have four years of English and can not take extra English classes early so are stuck in HS for four years. One school explained that this was because they wanted everyone to graduate with the same classes at the same age.

When I was in the 6th grade our math teacher started teaching the class more lessons since we finished the lessons we were supposed to early and were all doing very well. His boss who came in every so often to check how he was doing noticed and was upset to find out he was teaching us ahead of schedule and chewed him out and threatened to fire him for not following the program. He got in trouble for teaching ahead of schedule.
7 years ago Report
0
wildrose62
wildrose62: You can't be fired for doing your job.... he would have had every right to sue for wrongful dismissal. I will admit there are Principals who play God and set all means of schedules to meet syllabus guidelines, but these are usually there so that teachers don't fall behind. But you have to realise that those Principals are employees as well and can be challenged if their requests or expectations are unrealistic or not in the best interests of the students.

On the matter of advancing students, you have to consider the practicality of moving a student on to a higher level course withing a tightly structured system. (And we're stuck with tightly structured systems in schools because of minimal funding, large class sizes and syllabus requirements). Say a student finishes English at year 9 level halfway through the year -how can you move him into a year 10 level course that is already halfway to completion... even if they happened to be scheduled at the same time, which they are unlikely to be? The child has missed half the work and the teacher, with a class of 25 to 40 students, cannot spare the time from the needs of the others to catch up that six months of work with the advancing student. This is why there are levels within a subject - advanced levels for students who need more challenging courses, general for the majority and skills level courses for those who struggle.

Maybe it's different where you live, but my middle daughter was skipped ahead, graduated soon after her 16th birthday, and went to university at 16 and 5 months. Some of the students in her high school classes were two years older than her. We had, with the support of her teachers, requested an assessment of her abilities so that she could skip second grade, and had to fight a few bureaucrats to have her advanced. She duxed the school. Which shows it is possible to challenge the system.

"Stuck in high school for four years"???? How young do you want graduates to be? Do you think a 14 year old is ready, mentally, to enter the workforce? I've employed 16 year olds and I can tell you that many of them leave a lot to be desired in terms of maturity and work ethic. They were, without exception, unable or unwilling to do what they were asked and, in the end, I employed a 40 year old with a family to support. Very few early leavers find employment - I saw some recent figures that noted that over 85% of 16 year olds out of school were able to find full time employment....which is why they've raised the leaving age to 17 in Australia.
7 years ago Report
0
Aussiekitty
Aussiekitty: And thank goodness back in the past in the 80s kids could leave school at 15 just like l did because l wasn't learning anything worthwhile and l worked from that age until a couple of years ago now l care fulltime for my fiance and l might not have much education up my sleeve but l read alot and watch many documentary's of nature science animals ect and self taught my self l don't need a child molesting child bashing ect teacher to teach me anything because my primary school and high school was full of these lowlife teachers that got away with the horrible things they did to children in the past so l took the right path and thank f@ck these teachers didn't touch me but unfortunately ruined my school friends for the rest of there lives.
7 years ago Report
0
Page: 12