Re: Opposing a school damage claim

Ste wrote:
On 27 May, 11:22, "Norman Wells" <no-...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ste wrote:

Parents are primarily responsible, in my view, for behavioural
issues. As such, they are 'the management' and are those most likely
to have influence over their charges. If they are made to pay, and
do not like having to pay, then they will sort the matter out in a
manner appropriate to themselves with the child, to everyone's
benefit.

This is *not* a hypothesis borne out in the real world. In fact the
tenets of your perspective are risible. Parents, and indeed children,
are not "driven out of the market" if they become insolvent.

Who mentioned 'insolvent'? Where on earth did that come from?


As I've said Norman, I've already made my criticisms to this
assumption; I've forgotten more about rational choice theory than
you'll ever know.

That's good. In time then, you will be capable of forgetting your latest fanciful theories too.

To go back over my position, I argue it is *to be expected* of young
lads of that age, in the school environment, that there will be
rowdiness, and that it is most likely to occur where there are gaps
in supervision. It is *not* tolerable in the sense that we shrug our
shoulders, but it *is* reasonable to expect it, and it is *not*
reasonable to think that it can be easily deterred

Yes it is. What you express is defeatism and in fact a shrugging
shoulders tolerance of unacceptable behaviour. The way to deter it
is to take action against it in a way that those who can influence
it don't like. If parents get up in arms with the idea that they
have to pay, they'll soon do something about it.

Again Norman, you're just not listening. At no time have I said
anything resembling what you suggest. It is not "defeatism" to accept
the normal and rational science of behaviour. As I've said, the
easiest analogy I can think of is that what we are doing in school is
training children like dogs. But you cannot circumvent the training
process by threatening the dog; you must actually go through the
motions until the dog learns. Also you cannot expect every dog to be
trained in the same way, after the same period of time, or even expect
that every dog can be fully trained, or that every dog can be trained
to behave in exactly the same way. It is not "defeatism" to accept the
natural state of things, it is sanity.

The defeatism comes from your saying that rowdiness cannot be easily deterred, and the implication that we cannot therefore do anything about it. Yes we can. And it helps if you do not think of children like dogs. You do at least share a common language with children, and most of them are capable of at least a bit of rational thought.



; in essence, what
I'm saying is that the *normal way of things* is that young lads
misbehave, get punished for it, in the same way one expects a dog to
be corrected as part of the normal process of training. This is not
indicative of poor or irresponsible parenting, it's indicative of
the normal process of training that children must undergo.

And the quicker they learn, the less painful it will be. Excellent.

Again going back to the dog analogy, you cannot make a dog learn
quicker because you hit it with a hammer. In fact if you hit it with a
hammer, it may learn slower, or may learn something entirely different
than what you wanted it to learn.

Then don't hit it with a hammer. Tailor your actions to the pupil. Don't damage them unduly, but make sure they appreciate that actions have consequences. That's one of the best lessons they'll ever learn, and they'll learn it better and faster if they're not sheltered from the consequences, even if they're a little bit painful.


They can be made to change, provided the pressure put on them is
enough.

They may change for the worse, though. The CIA has done plenty of
research into torture and brainwashing, and what the ultimately found
was that applying pressure to people did indeed cause a "change in
their behaviour", but that ultimately it was impossible to rebuild
their personalities afterwards. And indeed, dictators like Stalin and
Mao had a good crack of the whip at "applying pressure", and even they
just gave up in the end and massacred people instead.

So I say again Norman, your simplistic models of human behaviour are
not borne out by research or real-world experience.

I don't recall ever advocating torture, brainwashing, waterboarding, massacring or anything similar. All I wanted was for parents to pay for a broken toilet door.

Once again, I *fundamentally reject* this assumption that the rowdy
behaviour was indicative of the boys' faulty character, or that it
is indicative of a poor upbringing or irresponsible parents at
home. And also once again, I *fundamentally reject* the argument
that financial penalties on the parents would actually discourage
this kind of behaviour overall.

Well, I think it probably would, just as anyone flashed by a speed
camera then slows down.

Speed cameras have been substantially less effective than would be
expected by rational choice theory. Indeed, if a substantial number of
drivers would "prefer" to lose their licences and high-paid jobs
rather than slow down, then in what sense does your hypothesis have
any useful predictive value?

I don't think highly unlikely hypotheses like yours have any relevance to anything at all. My own experience is that people do in fact slow down substantially after being flashed. I think damage to school property would also diminish substantially if parents had to pay.



Also, it is to *presuppose* (yet again!) that parents are the cause of
the behaviour in the first place. And secondly, if the parents *are*
the cause of the behaviour, then it is to *presuppose* (yet again!)
that a financial penalty will, for example, cure their mental
illnesses or alcoholism.

I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic at all as regards mental illneess or alcoholism. I do believe, however, that parents are, or should be, the prime movers in providing schools with material suitable to be let out into society and capable of learning, and are to some extent responsible if they don't.


Besides, it serves an additional wholly beneficial
purpose, which is that _I_ would not then have to pay for it.

That's if you can enforce the charge. And that's if it doesn't create
costs elsewhere. Like I said, if even a single child is beaten black
and blue by unstable parents, it would cost more in consequence than a
thousand toilet doors.

If they're unstable parents, the kid will have been beaten black and blue already. I doubt if being presented with a bill will cause any difference in their normal behaviour. If it does, the kid should be in care anyway.

What does it matter if I spray grafitti on a wall,
or break a door down? Who cares if I drop a trail of litter? What
about it if my dog fouls the pavement? Am I bovvered? Someone else
will clear it up, and it probably provides them with a job.

So that's alright then.

I have not at *any* time put forward the argument that it was
"alright" for the boys in question to have broken the door, or that
they should suffer no consequence. What I do submit is that a
financial penalty on the parents is *not* the correct remedy.

It's not the only one, no, but it is part of the solution.

On the contrary, I submit it could create more problems than it
solved. In fact, it would only have to create one single problem, for
it to create more problems than it solved.

And that's exactly what I regard as defeatism.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Opposing a school damage claim
    ... somehow there was failing on the part of the parents concerned. ...  If they are made to pay, and do not like having to pay, ... motions until the dog learns. ... financial penalty on the parents is *not* the correct remedy. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Opposing a school damage claim
    ... Parents are primarily responsible, in my view, for behavioural ... If they are made to pay, ... and it has a name: Rational Choice ... motions until the dog learns. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: dog at large
    ... "do you have a dog? ... court date and they'll want me to pay that too. ... keepin' his shit right. ... paid the bail at $250 and I should be home for a late dinner. ...
    (rec.sport.disc)
  • Re: ten pence tax band petition
    ... The childless couples are *not* responsible for that!! ... parents or people who end up being childless. ... We don't know that they don't pay back their parents. ... so cannot be subsidising them. ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Re: Online Matrimony
    ... painstakingly show them what it takes to succeed in this world, we pay ... Who gives a fuck? ... If your parents couldn't afford to pay for your education, ... any son or daughter who didn't seek their parent's blessing while ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)