NationStates Jolt Archive

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

I tenatively say 'yes'.

No.

I say no. My family values will no doubt differ from the ones a school will teach.

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

So many people don't know how to raise their kids which is why the generations get worse and worse, studies show we learn how to parent from our parents but if they fail to teach us then at least if the school teaches them there's hope for the future.

No.

Nothing against family values, good parenting, etc. but I don't want to have to pay lawyers' fees when Groups X Y and Z sue the school district. No thanks.

It should be taught in both places. Family values in my generation was taught at school. The way that it was is that they made you respect your teachers and elders. If you did not it was a whack with a ruler on the hand. If you were really bad it was the principles office for a paddle. Another thing if you swore at school you were in deep crap. You were generally expected to have good manners while in school. If you didn't you would be taught to behave correctly. Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.

Absolutely not. "Values" are not the place of the government. The government's only legitimate ability when it comes to constraining the actions of a citizen is to constrain them from harming someone else. "Values" and "morals" should not be foisted upon children by Gov. Co. or by a tyranical majority.

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

You could teach and demonstrate on different types of family values on the basis of education. But to teach a specific set of "family values" as an accepted norm just seems...preachy...

I vote for Manson Family values ;)

It should be taught in both places. Family values in my generation was taught at school. The way that it was is that they made you respect your teachers and elders. If you did not it was a whack with a ruler on the hand. If you were really bad it was the principles office for a paddle. Another thing if you swore at school you were in deep crap. You were generally expected to have good manners while in school. If you didn't you would be taught to behave correctly. Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.At my Catholic School, bear in mind this was in the 90s so a lot like modern schools, but they did not use rulers they switched to metal yard sticks instead.:(

At my Catholic School, bear in mind this was in the 90s so a lot like modern schools, but they did not use rulers they switched to metal yard sticks instead.:(

I have been hit with damn near everything. Metal hurts I agree.

No.

Nothing against family values, good parenting, etc. but I don't want to have to pay lawyers' fees when Groups X Y and Z sue the school district. No thanks.No let the rich conservatives pay and let us pay who support through donations as let us face it this is where many liberals and convervatives can meet on at least some common ground.

I have been hit with damn near everything. Metal hurts I agree.Ever been hit with a diamond ring with a gold Celtic cross on the head?

Now that hurts.

No let the rich conservatives pay and let us pay who support through donations as let us face it this is where many liberals and convervatives can meet on at least some common ground.

It's not 'rich conservatives' who get hurt when local taxes go through the roof due to litigation costs. It's the average guy who gets hit. Someone always gets offended when ethics of any kind enter into education.

No. I like the idea on principle, but it would open a huge can of worms as to which family values should the schools teach, who decides said values, and what happens if the students' families (or the teachers in question) disagree with the values.

Not to mention that I have enough on my plate with what I have to cover in class to give a lot of time to values education like that.

Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.
And what would this achieve, apart from child abuse and improper use of power?

It should be taught in both places. Family values in my generation was taught at school. The way that it was is that they made you respect your teachers and elders. If you did not it was a whack with a ruler on the hand. If you were really bad it was the principles office for a paddle. Another thing if you swore at school you were in deep crap. You were generally expected to have good manners while in school. If you didn't you would be taught to behave correctly. Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.

And why the hell should we care if kids are saying "bad" words? If a student interupts class, give them detention, and reward the good behavior of other students when they behave well. Reinforce behavior regarding school, and leave the rest to parents. I don't "respect my teachers and elders" any more than I respect anyone else. They earn that respect (interestingly enough, this means that most teachers actually make an effort to reach out to students, which makes more students successful than back when teachers ruled with an iron ruler).

Sounds like you want a return to good old bullshit brain-dead, zombie children who are totally unprepared to deal with a world where they are in charge, because they've been taught to bend over all their lives.

There are much more important things than worrying about "disrespect" from children. Just get them educated and let their parents decide what they should or should not believe.

And what would this achieve, apart from child abuse and improper use of power?

All the "good" little boy and girl zombies would behave themselves properly and we could return to the hell of the 1950's.

Edit: bloody time-warp!

Ever been hit with a diamond ring with a gold Celtic cross on the head?

Now that hurts.


Heh not that I can remember. However I have been hit many different occasions with guys wearing rings. While in the Army our little group we had use to fight all the time. So had my fair share of being hit with various items such as metal pipes, bottles, chairs, 2X4's and lots more. Maybe the school age whacking got me use to it. ;)

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

Family values should be taught by the family. If the quality of education in the household on "family values" is bad, maybe they aren't that important to begin with. Family values is also a fairly subjective topic. I mean, do you mean "Good, God-Fearing Christian Family Values"? Or do you mean "It's ok to be in a homosexual marriage, and people should really stop judging other people based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference" values?

It should be taught in both places. Family values in my generation was taught at school. The way that it was is that they made you respect your teachers and elders. If you did not it was a whack with a ruler on the hand. If you were really bad it was the principles office for a paddle. Another thing if you swore at school you were in deep crap. You were generally expected to have good manners while in school. If you didn't you would be taught to behave correctly. Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.
Sounds like a typical episode of that old kids show, Mr. Stalin's Neighborhood.

Heh not that I can remember. However I have been hit many different occasions with guys wearing rings. While in the Army our little group we had use to fight all the time. So had my fair share of being hit with various items such as metal pipes, bottles, chairs, 2X4's and lots more. Maybe the school age whacking got me use to it. ;)A kind at the school when they turned 18 knocked out a teacher when the teach was about to hit him out of school as he thought it was his place to do so out of class. Guy tried to have him thrown out, but on the other the teacher got fired and the kid taught him a lesson if you ever mess with a strong kid whose smart about laws and if you do not you get your ass handed to you.

And what would this achieve, apart from child abuse and improper use of power?

It wasn't child abuse when it was in use in schools. There were rules laid out to how it was to be administered. Also a paddle on the butt at home wasn't that big of deal. There is a difference in a paddle for mis-behavoir and blatant child abuse. The quick answer to what it would achieve is good behavior. If done correctly punishment such as this will change a child's behavior. Seen it for myself.

Family values should be taught by the family.

It's "families" and "church" and the like that are responsible for teaching people that "family values" mean rigid gender roles, female subordination, and vicious homophobia.

And children are hardly less subject to moral indoctrination when their families are doing it instead of the state.

And why the hell should we care if kids are saying "bad" words? If a student interupts class, give them detention, and reward the good behavior of other students when they behave well. Reinforce behavior regarding school, and leave the rest to parents. I don't "respect my teachers and elders" any more than I respect anyone else. They earn that respect (interestingly enough, this means that most teachers actually make an effort to reach out to students, which makes more students successful than back when teachers ruled with an iron ruler).

Sounds like you want a return to good old bullshit brain-dead, zombie children who are totally unprepared to deal with a world where they are in charge, because they've been taught to bend over all their lives.

There are much more important things than worrying about "disrespect" from children. Just get them educated and let their parents decide what they should or should not believe.That is why the rebellious and smart kids became the leaders of tommorrow.

*Looks at picture of Lenin and of Viking horde*

A kind at the school when they turned 18 knocked out a teacher when the teach was about to hit him out of school as he thought it was his place to do so out of class. Guy tried to have him thrown out, but on the other the teacher got fired and the kid taught him a lesson if you ever mess with a strong kid whose smart about laws and if you do not you get your ass handed to you.


You know when I was in HS there was a similar situation with a shop teacher. Don't remember how it started but the kid got expelled. I don't believe the teacher was suspended. I know he was still at that HS when my younger brother went through.

Sounds like you want a return to good old bullshit brain-dead, zombie children who are totally unprepared to deal with a world where they are in charge, because they've been taught to bend over all their lives.

Versus all the foul-mouthed, lazy, brain-dead, pot-smoking children who are totally unprepared to deal with a world where they're in charge, because they've had everything handed to them on a silver platter their whole lives?

I think I'll take the former.

Family values should be taught by the family.
What if these values include gems like "it's okay to beat your wife" or "go ahead and welsh on child support or raising your kids, it's alright"?

It wasn't child abuse when it was in use in schools. There were rules laid out to how it was to be administered. Also a paddle on the butt at home wasn't that big of deal. There is a difference in a paddle for mis-behavoir and blatant child abuse. The quick answer to what it would achieve is good behavior. If done correctly punishment such as this will change a child's behavior. Seen it for myself.We could just switch to mild electric shocks.:D

That is why the rebellious and smart kids became the leaders of tommorrow.

*Looks at picture of Lenin and of Viking horde*

Basically. Rebellious kids become leaders and ambitious contributers to society when they grow out of the posturing side of rebelliousness. "respectful" kids grow up to be worker-drones. The world doesn't need more worker-drones, especially in a new economic reality where the factory-worker and the miner are being replaced by machinery and better technology, and where more members of an intelligent service-based economy are needed.

No, its the family job.

Also, it should be taught at an early ages. That is why you have kids books and stories. THose are there to teach kids values in a naive and indirect way.

Teaching it directly at school is way too hard and weird. People cant even teach about sex, which is a very simple thing. Families are much more complicated.

It wasn’t child abuse when it was in use in schools. There were rules laid out to how it was to be administered. Also a paddle on the butt at home wasn’t that big of deal. There is a difference in a paddle for mis-behavoir and blatant child abuse. The quick answer to what it would achieve is good behavior. If done correctly punishment such as this will change a child’s behavior. Seen it for myself.
Big woop. Smack a dog with a stick enough times and he’ll do any trick you want. Same principle. Same barbarism.

The act of hitting a child, an individual powerless to resist, with a piece of wood designed to inflict pain, belongs in the past. It is a disgusting and abhorrent practice.

All the "good" little boy and girl zombies would behave themselves properly and we could return to the hell of the 1950's.

Edit: bloody time-warp!Yeah, free underage drinking for everbody.:)

What if these values include gems like "it's okay to beat your wife" or "go ahead and welsh on child support or raising your kids, it's alright"?
So what makes you think that teachers can get the kids to respect 'better' values when we only see them for less than 8 hours a day, 180 day a year for 12 years?

In general, it seems to me that indoctrinated moral values are not only less effective but also less moral than the natural, common-sense moral values that people develop on their own.

So, no.

It's "families" and "church" and the like that are responsible for teaching people that "family values" mean rigid gender roles, female subordination, and vicious homophobia.

And children are hardly less subject to moral indoctrination when their families are doing it instead of the state.

But then how do you decide the proper curriculum for family values? I mean some place in the south will have a family class on "How to be racist without using the N-word" and some place in the northeast will have a family values class on "It's ok to be gay, and no, don't go around being hateful." OR you're going to have a single, standardized class on family values, and come out with everyone believing the exact same thing, which in a way is kind of boring.

Sounds like you want a return to good old bullshit brain-dead, zombie children who are totally unprepared to deal with a world where they are in charge, because they've been taught to bend over all their lives.

.

I think maybe your missing my point here. What use to happen did not lead to brain-dead zombie children. I came out fine and know that generally all the kids came out good. What the purpose of that was to keep order. I have been in schools today and personally I think the behavior is out of control. As far as swearing it is an issue. You should get detention for it. However what I experienced in school had a larger impact and more immediate change of the kid's behavior.

It's "families" and "church" and the like that are responsible for teaching people that "family values" mean rigid gender roles, female subordination, and vicious homophobia.

Strange, I've been in a family for the past 17 years, and gone to church for most of them, yet I don't remember any lessons or psalms stating "women are inferior!!! RAWR!!!" or "HATE T3H GAYZ!!!"

How odd. :rolleyes:

I think maybe your missing my point here. What use to happen did not lead to brain-dead zombie children. I came out fine and know that generally all the kids came out good. What the purpose of that was to keep order. I have been in schools today and personally I think the behavior is out of control. As far as swearing it is an issue. You should get detention for it. However what I experienced in school had a larger impact and more immediate change of the kid's behavior.
There are far better ways of keeping control over a class than fear and pain.

And I sincerely doubt that everyone came out ok.

But then how do you decide the proper curriculum for family values?

You wouldn't. You wouldn't teach them.

Strange, I've been in a family for the past 17 years, and gone to church for most of them, yet I don't remember any lessons or psalms stating "women are inferior!!! RAWR!!!" or "HATE T3H GAYZ!!!"

So?

Nowhere did I say that such teachings were universal. I just find it rather absurd that the family is portrayed as all that much better than the state at indoctrinating morality into children.

I think maybe your missing my point here. What use to happen did not lead to brain-dead zombie children. I came out fine and know that generally all the kids came out good. What the purpose of that was to keep order. I have been in schools today and personally I think the behavior is out of control. As far as swearing it is an issue. You should get detention for it. However what I experienced in school had a larger impact and more immediate change of the kid's behavior.

I'm in school a hell of a lot more than you are right now, and I can say problems are few and far in between. When they do occur, they are dealt with. Problem students quickly find themselves at an alternate school.

I curse in class moderately regularly. Good teachers either ignore it, or give me a light repremand, and I remember not to curse in their class any more, out of courtesy. Bad teachers give me shit, and a make a point of being moderately more coarse in their classroom.

There is plenty fine "order", as long as teachers have the force of personality needed to control a class. Most do. Those that don't quickly find themselves teaching first grade, where all the kids are angels.

We don't need a return to 50's conservatism. All it created was a generation of uncreative twits, and the revolution of the hippies.

You wouldn't. You wouldn't teach them.



Preaching to the choir. I voted no.

I guess I don't think family values should be taught, but they generally will be by the family. And it will lead to a subjective understanding of "family values" that differs from family to family. Some will be racist beliefs, or bigotted beliefs. Others will be tolerant and accepting.

I see nothing wrong with this.

Basically. Rebellious kids become leaders and ambitious contributers to society when they grow out of the posturing side of rebelliousness. "respectful" kids grow up to be worker-drones. The world doesn't need more worker-drones, especially in a new economic reality where the factory-worker and the miner are being replaced by machinery and better technology, and where more members of an intelligent service-based economy are needed.

I was rebellious as they get. I spent more time in the principles office then I can remember. I also usually had a desk right next to the teachers in front of the class. What the punishment did do for me is learn respect for others. That was followed up more when I joined the Army. I came out just fine. I run two business and have nearly 100 employee's now between them. I contribute just fine to society. I actually give credit to school for punishing me when needed to keep me straight. I would imagine if I grew up in today's society I would not have turned out the same way.

I was rebellious as they get. I spent more time in the principles office then I can remember. I also usually had a desk right next to the teachers in front of the class. What the punishment did do for me is learn respect for others. That was followed up more when I joined the Army. I came out just fine. I run two business and have nearly 100 employee's now between them. I contribute just fine to society. I actually give credit to school for punishing me when needed to keep me straight. I would imagine if I grew up in today's society I would not have turned out the same way.

And you were one of the rebellious students. Allowing students more free reign is a good thing, because it makes more of the students who rebel against the drone-like thinking of their peers, and tend to end up with much more creative and ambitious mindsets. That's a good thing.

Any teacher who has to use violence to make their point is incompetant.

Vs. what is going on today? I also want to mention that the teacher seldom used the ruler because it was understood what would happen if you disrespected the teacher. I would bet that the vast majority of kids went all the way through school without being whacked with the ruler or paddled. Me however is a different story.
And most kids today don't need to be disciplined any more than they did back in your so-called golden age of physical punishment. The ones who ARE acting out, like you did, usually don't seem to learn all that much by getting beaten (your own admission here, you got it HOW many times? Once didn't teach you to knock it off? Perhaps it didn't have the effect you think it did).

There are far better ways of keeping control over a class than fear and pain.

And I sincerely doubt that everyone came out ok.

Vs. what is going on today? I also want to mention that the teacher seldom used the ruler because it was understood what would happen if you disrespected the teacher. I would bet that the vast majority of kids went all the way through school without being whacked with the ruler or paddled. Me however is a different story.

I see nothing wrong with this.

You don't see anything wrong with parents teaching their children to hate gays or blacks or Latinos, or to mistreat women, or to conform to rigidly-defined gender roles?

Are you serious?

I actually give credit to school for punishing me when needed to keep me straight. I would imagine if I grew up in today’s society I would not have turned out the same way.
The absence of physical abuse in schools doesn’t equate to the absence of punishment for bad behaviour; or reinforcement of good behaviour, for that matter.

Basically. Rebellious kids become leaders and ambitious contributers to society when they grow out of the posturing side of rebelliousness. "respectful" kids grow up to be worker-drones. The world doesn't need more worker-drones, especially in a new economic reality where the factory-worker and the miner are being replaced by machinery and better technology, and where more members of an intelligent service-based economy are needed.
Boo! Machinery and robotic workers suck!

You don't see anything wrong with parents teaching their children to hate gays or blacks or Latinos, or to mistreat women, or to conform to rigidly-defined gender roles?

Are you serious?

There will always be hatred and bigotry in the world. Trying to stamp it out will only lend it a modicum of credibility.

If you stop people from hating gays, hating blacks, hell hating whites, they're just going to vent that hate somewhere else.

Like at fathers who beat them for eating with the "wrong" hand. (Yes, this fucking happened.)

We don't need a return to 50's conservatism. All it created was a generation of uncreative twits, and the revolution of the hippies.


The generation I am from gave you the 80's economic revolution. I hardly say that was a product of uncreative twits and hippies.

The generation I am from gave you the 80's economic revolution. I hardly say that was a product of uncreative twits and hippies.

An economic boom based on a mix of government deficit-spending and increased military spending. Sooo creative.

The 80's economic boom ended in the '87 crash. Should I blame you for that, too?

No. How do you properly define "family values", and just whose would they end up being?

I was rebellious as they get. I spent more time in the principles office then I can remember. I also usually had a desk right next to the teachers in front of the class. What the punishment did do for me is learn respect for others. That was followed up more when I joined the Army. I came out just fine. I run two business and have nearly 100 employee's now between them. I contribute just fine to society. I actually give credit to school for punishing me when needed to keep me straight. I would imagine if I grew up in today's society I would not have turned out the same way.Thank you for providing a valid point to our case. As well, good for you and I hope you live in a nice big house, nice kids, with a wife that is possibly trohpy wife or better yet a hard working women who contributes to society, and also go to Church on Easter and Christmas?:D

Big woop. Smack a dog with a stick enough times and he’ll do any trick you want. Same principle. Same barbarism.

The act of hitting a child, an individual powerless to resist, with a piece of wood designed to inflict pain, belongs in the past. It is a disgusting and abhorrent practice.
I agree, but depending on the dog, you may very well get mauled to death or near death.

There will always be hatred and bigotry in the world. Trying to stamp it out will only lend it a modicum of credibility.

I didn't say we should try to stamp it out (not that I necessarily think it shouldn't be). I said it was wrong.

It is also a very good reason to have morality taught by nobody. Teaching implies a teacher; it makes morality necessarily external, and thus dependent on the arbitrary will of others, not upon natural human empathy and compassion.

Thank you for providing a valid point to our case. As well, good for you and I hope you live in a nice big house, nice kids, with a wife that is possibly trohpy wife or better yet a hard working women who contributes to society, and also go to Church on Easter and Christmas?:D

Does anyone actually want to live like that? I think I'd rather die.

I didn't say we should try to stamp it out (not that I necessarily think it shouldn't be). I said it was wrong.

It is also a very good reason to have morality taught by nobody. Teaching implies a teacher; it makes morality necessarily external, and thus dependent on the arbitrary will of others, not upon natural human empathy and compassion.

I can agree with that.

Vs. what is going on today?
What, exactly, is going on today, according to you?

Does anyone actually want to live like that? I think I'd rather die.American dream own a big house, have a good life, a wife that is your equal and partner in all things, have nice kids, and pay lip service twice a year for three hours total. Is that not the dream of us all?:confused:

It wasn't so bad really. I could think of much worse things. At least I wasn't high on drugs stealing for my drug habit. Now would rather die then that happen to me while I was growing up.

PS: not generalizing about drugs, I know it's not all kids.
Drugs are cool. And they don't make you steal. My dad did marijuana, meth amphetamine, and PCP and never stole anything. He just sold nic-nacs and odds & ends from my house. Like our VCR. It was a piece of crap anyway.

And he turned out fine. Well, except for the whole overdose part at 47 but still.

EDIT: Also forgot he drank 3-4 cans of beer EVERY DAY for the last 5 years or so of his life.

Does anyone actually want to live like that? I think I'd rather die.

It wasn't so bad really. I could think of much worse things. At least I wasn't high on drugs stealing for my drug habit. Now would rather die then that happen to me while I was growing up.

PS: not generalizing about drugs, I know it's not all kids.

What, exactly, is going on today, according to you?

General disrespect for other people. I include all rude behavior in that category. Drugs is a major problem. Lack of family support at home. Not saying this is particular to this generation. However it does seem more prevalent now then at anytime in the past I can remember.

General disrespect for other people. I include all rude behavior in that category. Drugs is a major problem. Lack of family support at home. Not saying this is particular to this generation. However it does seem more prevalent now then at anytime in the past I can remember.
I know people who do drugs are are respectful to their friends and acquintances, including teachers and parents.

General disrespect for other people. I include all rude behavior in that category. Drugs is a major problem. Lack of family support at home. Not saying this is particular to this generation. However it does seem more prevalent now then at anytime in the past I can remember.
I hate to tell you this, but from what I have seen studying history, it's been like this since back in ancient times. You sound like Plato complaining about the exact same issues with the younger generation.

I hate to tell you this, but from what I have seen studying history, it's been like this since back in ancient times. You sound like Plato complaining about the exact same issues with the younger generation.
lol

American dream own a big house, have a good life, a wife that is your equal and partner in all things, have nice kids, and pay lip service twice a year for three hours total. Is that not the dream of us all?:confused:

How utterly and completely boring. Don't you want to do something actually worthwhile?

It wasn't so bad really. I could think of much worse things. At least I wasn't high on drugs stealing for my drug habit. Now would rather die then that happen to me while I was growing up.

PS: not generalizing about drugs, I know it's not all kids.

It sounds entirely dull. I'd probably end up putting a bullet in between my eyes. I'm certainly the last one to talk about taking drugs, since I'm completely straight-edge, but to me the two fates seem equally bad. Either way you're wasting your life.

General disrespect for other people. I include all rude behavior in that category. Drugs is a major problem. Lack of family support at home. Not saying this is particular to this generation. However it does seem more prevalent now then at anytime in the past I can remember.
I think that’s just a misconception on your part. Folks have always grumbled about and exaggerated the behaviour of the ‘younger generation’. Folks have always taken drugs. Some have abused drugs. Most don’t.

I hate to tell you this, but from what I have seen studying history, it's been like this since back in ancient times. You sound like Plato complaining about the exact same issues with the younger generation.

Yup. There's always been something for old people to complain about about "kids these days".

I would rather live a thousand days as a lamb, then one day as a lion.
I'd rather live 500 days as a lambion.

I would rather live a thousand days as a lamb, then one day as a lion.

I would rather live a thousand days as a lamb, then one day as a lion.

See, I was raised to believe that I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Why live the miserable life of the lamb, chewing on grass, and fearing the sheep-dog and the wolves? A thousand days like that is a thousand too many.

See, I was raised to believe that I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Why live the miserable life of the lamb, chewing on grass, and fearing the sheep-dog and the wolves? A thousand days like that is a thousand too many.
+1 for dyin on yer feet. :upyours:

I would rather live a thousand days as a lamb, then one day as a lion.

I'd rather be a wolf, but this is the wrong thread to discuss that sort of thing.

How utterly and completely boring. Don't you want to do something actually worthwhile?



It sounds entirely dull. I'd probably end up putting a bullet in between my eyes. I'm certainly the last one to talk about taking drugs, since I'm completely straight-edge, but to me the two fates seem equally bad. Either way you're wasting your life.

Heh kid's these days. ;)

You are correct in a sense. However certain behavior's have ebbs and flows to it. I know that when I went through school kid's generally did not do drugs or get drunk. It just wasn't a problem as it seems to be in today's society. I think we are in downward trend on behavior in schools. Just my opinion about it.
I blame the sparkling wiggles and their wap music.

Heh kid's these days. ;)

Hey, just remember that I'll be the one paying for your Social Security checks, at twice the rate you pay for right now. Surely that counts for something? ;)

Heh kid's these days. ;)

Kids these days, who no longer believe that the value of your life is the size of your wallet.

No. "Family values" is such a broad catch-all phrase that they could end up trying to teach them anything in there. Add that to the fact that it would almost certainly be white christian stereotypically american values and the answer becomes hell no.

I think that’s just a misconception on your part. Folks have always grumbled about and exaggerated the behaviour of the ‘younger generation’. Folks have always taken drugs. Some have abused drugs. Most don’t.

You are correct in a sense. However certain behavior's have ebbs and flows to it. I know that when I went through school kid's generally did not do drugs or get drunk. It just wasn't a problem as it seems to be in today's society. I think we are in downward trend on behavior in schools. Just my opinion about it.

Kids these days, who no longer believe that the value of your life is the size of your wallet.

Money does not make a person. It is what you do with your life that matters. If it is a pursuit of making money or a life of charity work. Whatever it is you end up doing in life should be meaningful to you. We could get on a whole different topic on that subject.

You are correct in a sense. However certain behavior’s have ebbs and flows to it. I know that when I went through school kid’s generally did not do drugs or get drunk. It just wasn’t a problem as it seems to be in today’s society. I think we are in downward trend on behavior in schools. Just my opinion about it.
Would you mind me asking what decade(s) you went to school?

You are correct in a sense. However certain behavior's have ebbs and flows to it. I know that when I went through school kid's generally did not do drugs or get drunk. It just wasn't a problem as it seems to be in today's society. I think we are in downward trend on behavior in schools. Just my opinion about it.

There are generational trends. Silent generations tend to rebel by being less drug-influenced. The drugs of choice for this generation are weed and alchohol. That's hardly as bad as the drugs of the 70's and 80's, which were a great deal harder.

In the '20's, there was a great deal of teenage drinking, even though violence against children was practiced, and alchohol was a great deal less accessible.

I blame the sparkling wiggles and their wap music.

Wouldn't go to that extreme.

Money does not make a person. It is what you do with your life that matters. If it is a pursuit of making money or a life of charity work. Whatever it is you end up doing in life should be meaningful to you. We could get on a whole different topic on that subject.

I agree. This is why I'm going into academics and research, rather than engineering.

There are generational trends. Silent generations tend to rebel by being less drug-influenced. The drugs of choice for this generation are weed and alchohol. That's hardly as bad as the drugs of the 70's and 80's, which were a great deal harder.

In the '20's, there was a great deal of teenage drinking, even though violence against children was practiced, and alchohol was a great deal less accessible.
Now days they have crack. Back in the day they had very weak pot and acid, and sometimes mushrooms. And cheap beer.

Now days they have crack. Back in the day they had very weak pot and acid, and sometimes mushrooms. And cheap beer.

Yes, but crack isn't one of the social-drugs for the Millenials. Weed and alchohol are.

Yes, but crack isn’t one of the social-drugs for the Millenials. Weed and alchohol are.
Don’t forget caffeine!

Don’t forget caffeine!

Caffeine is more of an incidental drug for the Millenials, from what I can see. It really isn't done as a drug for drug's sake.

Would you mind me asking what decade(s) you went to school?

Not at all. Started in the late 60's through the 70's into the mid 80's. That is for all the different levels including college.

Don’t forget caffeine!

That was not allowed while I was in school all the way through H.S. I see that trend is starting reappear again.

I'm a poll option now? :confused:

Caffeine is more of an incidental drug for the Millenials, from what I can see. It really isn’t done as a drug for drug’s sake.
What drug is done for the sake of it being a drug? That’s what I’d call drug misuse.

Caffeine is taken in vast quantities by millions upon millions of people every single day; it’s the world’s favourite drug. Soaring heart attack rates attest to it being more than just incidental.

That was not allowed while I was in school all the way through H.S. I see that trend is starting reappear again.
I’m confuzzled: caffeine wasn’t allowed in your school system?

Apparently you have risen to the level of pancakes and myrth. I'm not sure if that is a good thing....

I'm...honored?

:D

Now I feel like I ought to actually read the thread and try to contribute.

I'm a poll option now? :confused:

Apparently you have risen to the level of pancakes and myrth. I'm not sure if that is a good thing....

What drug is done for the sake of it being a drug? That’s what I’d call drug misuse.

Caffeine is taken in vast quantities by millions upon millions of people every single day; it’s the world’s favourite drug. Soaring heart attack rates attest to it being more than just incidental.

Well, but caffeine isn't really even done for a high or for enjoyment. It is used to stay awake, sometimes, but it simply doesn't do enough to have anyone seeking a high from it.

Then again, I've never had one of those energy drinks, because they strike me as being drugs of the worst kind.

Well, but caffeine isn't really even done for a high or for enjoyment. It is used to stay awake, sometimes, but it simply doesn't do enough to have anyone seeking a high from it.

Then again, I've never had one of those energy drinks, because they strike me as being drugs of the worst kind.

I drank those once, back when they were called Jolt! Cola. I was 17 and they made my chest hurt. I decided I wouldn't drink another one. And remember Mini-thins? Those would keep you cranked for a while as well.

Well, but caffeine isn’t really even done for a high or for enjoyment. It is used to stay awake, sometimes, but it simply doesn’t do enough to have anyone seeking a high from it.
Of course caffeine is taken for enjoyment! I fucking love tea. Addicted to the stuff.

Look how successful Starbucks, Costa and their ilk have been. Millions of people buy coffee or tea every day for more than just enjoyment. It may not be as obviously mind-altering as, say, LSD or MDMA, but it’s still a powerful, and powerfully addictive, intoxicant.

Of course caffeine is taken for enjoyment! I fucking love tea. Addicted to the stuff.

Look how successful Starbucks, Costa and their ilk have been. Millions of people buy coffee or tea every day for more than just enjoyment. It may not be as obviously mind-altering as, say, LSD or MDMA, but it’s still a powerful, and powerfully addictive, intoxicant.

Maybe I'm just strange. I don't get to have caffeinated beverages all that often, since I despise tea and coffee, and technically can't have soda any more. Still, I've never experienced a true rush because of caffeine.

Of course caffeine is taken for enjoyment! I fucking love tea. Addicted to the stuff.

Look how successful Starbucks, Costa and their ilk have been. Millions of people buy coffee or tea every day for more than just enjoyment. It may not be as obviously mind-altering as, say, LSD or MDMA, but it’s still a powerful, and powerfully addictive, intoxicant.

How many people actually drink Starbucks for the coffee? I see my students with it in class all the time, but it's never the coffee, or rather, the coffee seems to be the carrier for caramel, whipped cream, chocolate and a host of other sugary substances. Seems to me they're getting off on the sugar rush more than the caffeine.

Maybe I’m just strange. I don’t get to have caffeinated beverages all that often, since I despise tea and coffee, and technically can’t have soda any more. Still, I’ve never experienced a true rush because of caffeine.
Try an espresso sometime......

How many people actually drink Starbucks for the coffee? I see my students with it in class all the time, but it’s never the coffee, or rather, the coffee seems to be the carrier for caramel, whipped cream, chocolate and a host of other sugary substances. Seems to me they’re getting off on the sugar rush more than the caffeine.
Maybe it’s different in the US, but on this side of the Pond, tea is a national drug.

Maybe it’s different in the US, but on this side of the Pond, tea is a national drug.And we drink a lot of coffee here. There's a reason there are more Starbucks than all fast food restaurants combined in San Francisco. I've just noticed that where I'm teaching now, there doesn't seem to be much coffee in my students' coffee. I drink mine black, and I drink a far amount of it. Same with my tea.

Maybe it’s different in the US, but on this side of the Pond, tea is a national drug.

There is a lot of coffee drinking, but kids tend to drink their coffee with other things to make the coffee taste go away. Maybe it's just the fact that we were raised drinking sodas, not teas, and stuff like that, but the bitter taste of coffee is very unpleasant to most kids.

No, family values doesn't need to be taught in the schools. No more so than secularism should be taught in the schools. Leave your morality at home, please. School should be a place of learning, not indoctrination.

No caffeine soda or coffee. Now I see a trend of it going back to that rule. I know that a lot of the school districts around me are going to the no caffeine rule

But why? Caffeine hardly interupts school.

I’m confuzzled: caffeine wasn’t allowed in your school system?

No caffeine soda or coffee. Now I see a trend of it going back to that rule. I know that a lot of the school districts around me are going to the no caffeine rule

Should family values be taught in school?Only if family values consists of two gay male alchoholics sodomising their adopted little girls with an assortment of religious symbols.

Yes, schools should teach values, but not family values, whatever the hell that is. Schools should teach children the value of basing a society on the least amount of rules needed to enable peaceful coexistence. Anything else is indotrination of one kind or another, and does nothing but teach children prejudice and how to stigmatize eachother.

Two dads is unnatural, Christians are irrational, atheists are immoral, Muslims are murderers... Fuck family values, whatever they may be. It's just a majority's excuse to debase and repress others.

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

Parents teach family values....and as for drinking why not drink around them? nothing is wrong with having a drink or two it is drinking to excess that is wrong. If you do not teach your children the differences between right or wrong then you are setting them up for failure....and that incliudes drinking.... the more you hide from a child the more you cause them harm in the long run. It is like trying to ban games or movies from children....it is up to the parents not the gov't to decide what a child should and should not participate in. Anyone who allows someone else to choose for them is just lazy and should not have kids in the first place.

It should be taught in both places. Family values in my generation was taught at school. The way that it was is that they made you respect your teachers and elders. If you did not it was a whack with a ruler on the hand. If you were really bad it was the principles office for a paddle. Another thing if you swore at school you were in deep crap. You were generally expected to have good manners while in school. If you didn't you would be taught to behave correctly. Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.

Well that says a lot about you, and none of it good.

Well that says a lot about you, and none of it good.

NO the problem is too many liberal "I know what is best for your child even though I do not have any of my own" have too much control on how children should be raised. If they really had any clue about children they would not offer the advice they do.

NO the problem is too many liberal “I know what is best for your child even though I do not have any of my own” have too much control on how children should be raised. If they really had any clue about children they would not offer the advice they do.
So teh libruls have control of our children now?

Oh, and his name is John Stuart Mill.

NO the problem is too many liberal "I know what is best for your child even though I do not have any of my own" have too much control on how children should be raised. If they really had any clue about children they would not offer the advice they do.

I like you. :fluffle:

No caffeine soda or coffee. Now I see a trend of it going back to that rule. I know that a lot of the school districts around me are going to the no caffeine rule

My school has a cappuccino machine. My other school has a big fancy coffee machine that makes everything from decaf to cappuccinos and espresso.

My school has a cappuccino machine. My other school has a big fancy coffee machine that makes everything from decaf to cappuccinos and espresso.I wish my school had that, lol! All it has is a Red Bull vending machine.

The key word here is family. A school is not a family, so cannot teach family values; it can teach things that are valued by schools, like how to get good grades without studying, schmoozing higher ups and so on. Only a family can teach family values.

I wish my school had that, lol! All it has is a Red Bull vending machine.

I wouldn't mind one of those in my schools! But seeing how I go to the mall for the majority of the day for class, I can just go out and buy a nice huge can of (Blue! FTW!) Jolt, or some Bawls.

The key word here is family. A school is not a family, so cannot teach family values; it can teach things that are valued by schools, like how to get good grades without studying, schmoozing higher ups and so on. Only a family can teach family values.

How do you feel about Parenting classes?

How do you feel about Parenting classes?

Parenting classes don't necessarily teach family values (things like morals and ethics), it teaches coping strategies necessary to help keep you from putting a pillow over the little brat's nose early on, like changing diapers, methods of discipline, nutrition and so on.

Parenting classes don't necessarily teach family values (things like morals and ethics), it teaches coping strategies necessary to help keep you from putting a pillow over the little brat's nose early on, like changing diapers, methods of discipline, nutrition and so on.

I see, and understand.

depends on the school and parents ofcourse. I know there are parents that send their kids to certain schools to get what they teach at home reinforced or at least applied there. Jews and Christians come to mind especially. By that fact.. Muslims probably do too. To each their own. It's their kids and their cash.. usually 'private'.

NO the problem is too many liberal "I know what is best for your child even though I do not have any of my own" have too much control on how children should be raised. If they really had any clue about children they would not offer the advice they do.

Yeah. Those damn libruls! Not letting us attack our children!

No.

Okay, a crazy idea here, but why not have the PARENTS teach values to the kids? If they can't or won't make the time for the kids, then they probably shouldn't have been parents in the first place.

No.

Okay, a crazy idea here, but why not have the PARENTS teach values to the kids? If they can't or won't make the time for the kids, then they probably shouldn't have been parents in the first place.

if they already have children it might be a little bit to late.

adam's faimly values maybe.

along with graucho marxism.

=^^=
.../\...

Err...Doesn't the family do that? Otherwise they'd be 'School Values', no?

Err...Doesn't the family do that? Otherwise they'd be 'School Values', no?

actualy the're political con artist values that families are conned into immagining they have something to do with some vague undiffined goodness that supposidly comes from that fanaticly arbitrary letter of whatever consensus of belief happens to dominate the culture they happen to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

actualy the're political con artist values that families are conned into immagining they have something to do with some vague undiffined goodness that supposidly comes from that fanaticly arbitrary letter of whatever consensus of belief happens to dominate the culture they happen to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

*blink blink*

What?

*blink blink*

What?

i didn't stutter. those who immagine otherwise have all been conned.

(the avoidance of causing all suffering is morality. 'family' values are, if not evil, certainly one of the next best things to it. does depend on the 'family' in question though)

=^^=
.../\...

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

I rather think they should be taught by the family, and by the religious and community leaders.

Schools are asked to be mother, father, babysitter, psychologist, best friend and everything up to and including educator. Some parents would like to abdicate all responsibility for the upbringing of their offspring to the schools -- but heaven forbid that in a sex ed class a kid's told, "Well, we recommnend waiting, but if you are going to have sex, you should use a condom to protect yourself...." HORRORS! LAWSUITS!!!! HOW DARE YOU ENCOURAGE MY KID TO HAVE SEX!!!!!

Really, schools should be responsible for reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, social studies, languages, health, sciences, phys ed...... leave the moral education to parents.

I rather think they should be taught by the family, and by the religious and community leaders.

Schools are asked to be mother, father, babysitter, psychologist, best friend and everything up to and including educator. Some parents would like to abdicate all responsibility for the upbringing of their offspring to the schools -- but heaven forbid that in a sex ed class a kid's told, "Well, we recommnend waiting, but if you are going to have sex, you should use a condom to protect yourself...." HORRORS! LAWSUITS!!!! HOW DARE YOU ENCOURAGE MY KID TO HAVE SEX!!!!!

Really, schools should be responsible for reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, social studies, languages, health, sciences, phys ed...... leave the moral education to parents.

Surely we can get a little farther than arithmatic? I'm hoping for Complex analysis, myself.

Rather than teaching family values in school, I think schools should teach their classes in peoples' homes. Think of the savings!

Well, we teach calculus. Morality should be left to parents, though.

Well, we teach calculus. Morality should be left to parents, though.

You know how we're taught to add. Then you learn multiplying, which is like fast adding. Then, powers are like fast multiplying. I think calculus is like fast algebra.

Yes, so long as they leave it at that and NOT the other so-called "family values" such as don't live with someone unless you're married, no abortion, no gay marriage, and all that other bullshit.

You know how we're taught to add. Then you larn multiplying, which is like fast adding. Then, powers are like fast multiplying. I think calculus is like fast algebra.

Err...like, iterated algebra? I'm not sure how that would work.

Incidentally, fast powers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration)

Well, we teach calculus. Morality should be left to parents, though.

Trust me on this when I say you don't want to do that. Do you really want a bunch of crazy homophobes, racists, and radical christians to raise the next generation?

The problem of course, arises when schools start teaching stuff like abstinence instead of real sex ed.

I believe we should probably pass a law granting schools immunity from lawsuits related to teaching about sex. If the fucking Army gets a free ride, I don't see why sex ed shouldn't.

I hate the way it is in school. Everyone cusses and has no regard to any form of morals and sometimes I'm around it so much I forget it's even wrong. I wish some form of rudimentary ethics and values were taught in schools.

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

No.

I don't trust schools to teach a concept as nebulous as "family values." If they've got a family that's together then their family is teaching them family values. If they don't, then you're just telling the kids that they're fucked up.

Even the idea "don't drink around them" is pretty shaky as a family value. Alcohol is not evil. Being seen to drink in moderation is much better than never being seen to drink at all.

If "Family Values" are that far off on the simple matter of alcohol, well then how far afield are they likely to go on more complicated issues?

I hate the way it is in school. Everyone cusses and has no regard to any form of morals and sometimes I'm around it so much I forget it's even wrong.

Let freedom ring.

Everyone cusses and has no regard to any form of morals and sometimes I'm around it so much I forget it's even wrong.
Why do you hate freedom?

lol time warp

I have so much freedom ringing right now I can go before other people. :D

EDIT: See?

Let freedom ring.
lol time warp

Absolutelly not is my answer. Family values is something christians call their anti gay campaigns mostly. Besides, how stupid would "family values" look on a school shedule?

I have so much freedom ringing right now I can go before other people. :D

EDIT: See?
Yep. Stupid Jolt.

Gosh darn swarin', why can't more people be ethcumenical?

Because we LET FREEDOM RING!

*Lets freedom ring loudly in New Genoa's face*

Yep. Stupid Jolt.

Maybe if you ring your freedom enough you can learn the time warp.

I hate the way it is in school. Everyone cusses and has no regard to any form of morals and sometimes I'm around it so much I forget it's even wrong. I wish some form of rudimentary ethics and values were taught in schools.

Gosh darn swarin', why can't more people be ethcumenical?

Today's lesson plan:


"Drugs are bad, m'kay? If you do drugs, it will be bad.

Now sex. Having sex is bad, m'kay?"

Ah, Mr. Mackey.

Absolutelly not is my answer. Family values is something christians call their anti gay campaigns mostly. Besides, how stupid would "family values" look on a school shedule?

Today's lesson plan:

Gays are bad
Sex is bad
Swearing is bad (instead of ass say buns, instead of shit say poo, instead of bitch say bich, instead fuck say mmkay)
Masturbation is bad
Watching R-rated movies is bad
Watching MA-rated TV shows is bad
Video games are bad
Having fun is bad
Having a monogamous, heterosexual, church-going Protestant family is good

Today's lesson plan:

Gays are bad
Sex is bad
Swearing is bad (instead of ass say buns, instead of shit say poo, instead of bitch say bich, instead fuck say mmkay)
Masturbation is bad
Watching R-rated movies is bad
Watching MA-rated TV shows is bad
Video games are bad
Having fun is bad
Having a monogamous, heterosexual, church-going Protestant family is good

I would love to see how they would grade those subjects. I know how they could make the "masturbation is bad finals". They could put a guy in a room and put on a porno. If he doesn't starts masturbating within an hour he'll get an A.

What is the problem about not drinking when children are present?

My parents taught me to drink responsibly by their example. I never had to drink secretly. And I knew the effects of booze rather early (by American standards at least).

I think the real issue is the meme of delegating education more and more to the kindergarten and school.

Some family values are called ethics. I'm not talking about abortians and God. I'm talking about honesty, loyalty, hard work, etc. There's nothing wrong with schools reinforcing those standards. After all, if everything the family needs to teach are only for the families to teach, why do schools have sex-ed? That's something that SHOULD be taught father-to-son and mother-to-daughter. I say, if you don't want teen girls getting pregnant, show them pictures of teen pregnancies gone horribly wrong. Show them often. Some may ignore them with the infamous "it will never happen to me" attitude, but others won't. Those that follow that infamous motto really need to have something horrible happen to them before they die from a combination of oversode, stds, and a wrecked car.

Schools should force ethics onto kids. After all, CEOs had to start somewhere, often as "drones". It's a ladder. Those CEOs and Presidents got where they are today by understanding how the world works. They learned the system and crawled their way up. My uncle often taught me this and he's Vice President of something in Harris I think.

There's nothing wrong with hard work and loyalty. Those are traits valued by companies. Even leaders are followers of something.

I would love to see how they would grade those subjects. I know how they could make the "masturbation is bad finals". They could put a guy in a room and put on a porno. If he doesn't starts masturbating within an hour he'll get an A.

less than 36 minutes is an F
36-42=D
42-48=C
48-54=B
54+=A

Some family values are called ethics. I'm not talking about abortians and God. I'm talking about honesty, loyalty, hard work, etc. There's nothing wrong with schools reinforcing those standards. After all, if everything the family needs to teach are only for the families to teach, why do schools have sex-ed? That's something that SHOULD be taught father-to-son and mother-to-daughter. I say, if you don't want teen girls getting pregnant, show them pictures of teen pregnancies gone horribly wrong. Show them often. Some may ignore them with the infamous "it will never happen to me" attitude, but others won't. Those that follow that infamous motto really need to have something horrible happen to them before they die from a combination of oversode, stds, and a wrecked car.

Schools should force ethics onto kids. After all, CEOs had to start somewhere, often as "drones". It's a ladder. Those CEOs and Presidents got where they are today by understanding how the world works. They learned the system and crawled their way up. My uncle often taught me this and he's Vice President of something in Harris I think.

There's nothing wrong with hard work and loyalty. Those are traits valued by companies. Even leaders are followers of something.

How can you force ethics on someone? I mean, ethics and not 'make sure I won't get caught'. How is hard work in itself a value? How can you call CEOs and presidents the most important people?

And schools have sex ed because it is in more detaill than the parents know. Can you explain how the pill works?

Some family values are called ethics. I'm not talking about abortians and God. I'm talking about honesty, loyalty, hard work, etc. There's nothing wrong with schools reinforcing those standards. After all, if everything the family needs to teach are only for the families to teach, why do schools have sex-ed? That's something that SHOULD be taught father-to-son and mother-to-daughter. I say, if you don't want teen girls getting pregnant, show them pictures of teen pregnancies gone horribly wrong. Show them often. Some may ignore them with the infamous "it will never happen to me" attitude, but others won't. Those that follow that infamous motto really need to have something horrible happen to them before they die from a combination of oversode, stds, and a wrecked car.


Interesting. There is a reason it's called sexual education. I really don't think it should impart any type of morality or ethics on to you, but to educate you about sex, STDs, pregnancy, etc. If parents want to teach children the ethics behind sex (when to have it, etc.) then that's what parents teach.

You, on the other hand, seem to enjoy advocating scare tactics that will teach people to be AFRAID of sex.

Schools should force ethics onto kids. After all, CEOs had to start somewhere, often as "drones". It's a ladder. Those CEOs and Presidents got where they are today by understanding how the world works. They learned the system and crawled their way up. My uncle often taught me this and he's Vice President of something in Harris I think.

There's nothing wrong with hard work and loyalty. Those are traits valued by companies. Even leaders are followers of something.
No, presidents and CEOs get their jobs because they are born into the owning family of a company. They take their father's place. Before their father was their grandfather, and before that, etc.

And if a company gets a new CEO, it's most likely because the company was sold to another company with more money who's CEO is also the son of a CEO, etc.

This is why Pedro from McDonalds and Lynda from Wal-Mart are still cashiers after working for 7-8 years.

:p :p :p

Maybe?

Schools should force ethics onto kids. After all, CEOs had to start somewhere, often as "drones". It's a ladder. Those CEOs and Presidents got where they are today by understanding how the world works. They learned the system and crawled their way up. My uncle often taught me this and he's Vice President of something in Harris I think.

And what has being a CEO got to do with being ethical? In case you hadn't noticed, part of being a CEO is knowing how to cheat without breaking the law. It has little to do with ethics or rule-following, and a great deal more to do with creativity and skilled subterfuge.

There's nothing wrong with hard work and loyalty. Those are traits valued by companies. Even leaders are followers of something.

There's absolutely something wrong with teaching hard work and loyalty in the schools, especially with the goal of turning children into little corporate drones. The last thing we need is the government actively trying to turn out cubicle-drones. We'd all be brain-dead in a generation.

The last thing we need is the government actively trying to turn out cubicle-drones. We’d all be brain-dead in a generation.
You obviously haven’t experienced the British University system...

No, presidents and CEOs get their jobs because they are born into the owning family of a company. They take their father's place. Before their father was their grandfather, and before that, etc.

And if a company gets a new CEO, it's most likely because the company was sold to another company with more money who's CEO is also the son of a CEO, etc.

This is why Pedro from McDonalds and Lynda from Wal-Mart are still cashiers after working for 7-8 years.

you don't seem to know much about the situation do you? most CEO's I know aren't related to the company in any way other than they are employed by it.

as for the OP's question, no, I don't think so.

What exactly is a 'family value'? how can you define something like that?

You obviously haven’t experienced the British University system...

I can honestly say that I have not had that distinct pleasure. Not that Public Universities aren't the same here in the states.

you don't seem to know much about the situation do you? most CEO's I know aren't related to the company in any way other than they are employed by it.

as for the OP's question, no, I don't think so.
I was joking. :-/

Having a monogamous, heterosexual, church-going Protestant family is good

I bolded the parts I object to being taught as good things.
:D

1. I never said presidents and CEOs were the most important. They're just the people who run powerful corporations and get rich.

2. Many presidents and CEOs weren't born into the family business. The guy who created Wal-Mart became the richest guy in the world by starting a company that sold products at low prices. Bill Gates got rich by taking advantage of the computer industry when many people thought it wouldn't last.

3. The reason why we have sex ed is because parents don't teach it. By the way I see people around me act and talk, many parents seem to not teach important values.

4. Why do I get the impression that many people in charge of getting the children educated and make laws concering them have never had a child before. Probably why they find it so easy. It's easier said than done and all they're doing is talking.

Absolutely not. "Values" are not the place of the government. The government's only legitimate ability when it comes to constraining the actions of a citizen is to constrain them from harming someone else. "Values" and "morals" should not be foisted upon children by Gov. Co. or by a tyranical majority.

Theirs a difference between "government" and "education".

Theirs a difference between "government" and "education".

No. No, there isn't. In the U.S., the schools are a branch of the government. There is no difference at all.

Hell no.

No. No, there isn't. In the U.S., the schools are a branch of the government. There is no difference at all.

Let me put it this way, there is a difference between the government enforcing "morality" onto people and schools teaching (not enforcing) morality. You also mention that the government should only make sure that it restrains one person from harming someone else. Isn't the idea of teaching family values is to make sure no harm is done to the society and that children are brought up healthily/happily?

No. No, there isn't. In the U.S., the schools are a branch of the government. There is no difference at all.

That's not completely true. The US also has private schools that are, while approved by the government, are NOT run by it.

Let me put it this way, there is a difference between the government enforcing "morality" onto people and schools teaching (not enforcing) morality. You also mention that the government should only make sure that it restrains one person from harming someone else. Isn't the idea of teaching family values is to make sure no harm is done to the society and that children are brought up healthily/happily?

There is no difference. Teaching "morality" to children is, because of their impressionable state, the same as enforcing a single view of morality. And no, the government has the right to confine criminals who have broken the law, but not to teach a specific set of values as the way people should act. That's just disgustingly Orwellian.

That's not completely true. The US also has private schools that are, while approved by the government, are NOT run by it.

But the content they teach is still monitored by the government.

There is no difference. Teaching "morality" to children is, because of their impressionable state, the same as enforcing a single view of morality. And no, the government has the right to confine criminals who have broken the law, but not to teach a specific set of values as the way people should act. That's just disgustingly Orwellian.

But the thing is, the family values that i'm thinking of are not really morals, just facts. Facts like, drinking and taking drugs around your kids can have negative consequences, you need to pay attention to your kids rather then ignore them to ensure a happier child hood etc... I know the term family values in america have been used to describe things like anti gay marriage, but thats not what I am talking about. It is almost impossible for any school not to teach morals to kids, or kids will essentially be able to do what they want in school as any command given to a kid will be seen as a command they have to follow (i.e. a moral).

But the thing is, the family values that i'm thinking of are not really morals, just facts. Facts like, drinking and taking drugs around your kids can have negative consequences, you need to pay attention to your kids rather then ignore them to ensure a happier child hood etc... I know the term family values in america have been used to describe things like anti gay marriage, but thats not what I am talking about. It is almost impossible for any school not to teach morals to kids, or kids will essentially be able to do what they want in school as any command given to a kid will be seen as a command they have to follow (i.e. a moral).

Once again. The role of the government is to enforce laws, not to enforce thinking styles. Similarly, the schools need to keep a safe environment for learning, but do not need to enforce thinking styles.

I am strongly and viscerally opposed to government-sponsored moral education. It becomes a line between which "morals" should or should not be taught, and then we get a majority of scared suburbanites teaching our kids that bad words are a sin, and that homosexuals are evil.

But the content they teach is still monitored by the government.
Er... not quite, not even the public schools curricula is monitored by the government.

The Federal Government does not really have a stake in education. STATE and LOCAL government determin the standards that are taught and the individual schools develop the curricula to match those standards. Private schools (those not receiving public funds) can teach whatever the hell they want to, but they may find that their education is not accredited, making the nice pieces of paper they give to their kids worthless when the kids try to move to a higher level that doesn't reconize the school or course.

Once again. The role of the government is to enforce laws, not to enforce thinking styles. Similarly, the schools need to keep a safe environment for learning, but do not need to enforce thinking styles.


In keeping a safe environment for kids they have already "enforced" (retarded word to use) thinking styles (ZOMG TOTALITARION DICTATORSHIP). Telling people to listen to your kids is hardly a moral, and your not going to find any one who disagrees with that, therefore no confrontation thus none of this "but my cultures morals don't believe in listening to your kids, who are you to tell me what to do" crap.

Oh and btw, enforcing laws is enforcing morals, human rights are just another set of morals.



I am strongly and viscerally opposed to government-sponsored moral education. It becomes a line between which "morals" should or should not be taught, and then we get a majority of scared suburbanites teaching our kids that bad words are a sin, and that homosexuals are evil.

Thats nice, too bad i'm not talking about morals.

Er... not quite, not even the public schools curricula is monitored by the government.

The Federal Government does not really have a stake in education. STATE and LOCAL government determin the standards that are taught and the individual schools develop the curricula to match those standards. Private schools (those not receiving public funds) can teach whatever the hell they want to, but they may find that their education is not accredited, making the nice pieces of paper they give to their kids worthless when the kids try to move to a higher level that doesn't reconize the school or course.

I was under the impression (and this may simply be false) that under NCLB, testing was required for both public and private schools.

Oh and btw, enforcing laws is enforcing morals, human rights are just another set of morals.

Enforcing laws is enforcing the social contract, not enforcing morals.


Thats nice, too bad i'm not talking about morals.

But where do we draw the line? One week, it's just the morals that "everyone" agrees about, like not beating your children. Next it's teaching them that abortion is evil, and that girls should stay at home, rather than work, It's better to the draw the line at nothing, rather than allow scared suburbanites more power to enforce their twisted views of morality.

Enforcing laws is enforcing the social contract, not enforcing morals.


The social contract is a utilitarian based set of morals, it's not as if the people had that much of a say in what they were and even if they did it's still morals whether agreed to or not.


But where do we draw the line? One week, it's just the morals that "everyone" agrees about, like not beating your children. Next it's teaching them that abortion is evil, and that girls should stay at home, rather than work, It's better to the draw the line at nothing, rather than allow scared suburbanites more power to enforce their twisted views of morality.

I see no reason for this slippery slope. Suburbanites still have to teach what the governments tell them to teach, and it would be impractical for them to teach something they could get sued about.

I was under the impression (and this may simply be false) that under NCLB, testing was required for both public and private schools.
Not at all. Education is, as always, a local affair. the DoEd just does NOT have a say in the day to day running of any school. What the Federal Government DOES have is purse strings. Every education law Congress passes (Even NCLB), states that if you don't want the money, you don't have to follow the law. As many private schools do not recieve federal funds, they are exempt from NCLB testing.

Even then, NCLB just states that students have to meet the 'standard' in Math and English, it leaves it up to the individual states to define just what the standard is in the first place.

The social contract is a utilitarian based set of morals, it's not as if the people had that much of a say in what they were and even if they did it's still morals whether agreed to or not.

The social contract is a purely self-serving contract that says that as long as you don't stab me, I won't have my brother stab you. Nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with practicalism.

I see no reason for this slippery slope. Suburbanites still have to teach what the governments tell them to teach, and it would be impractical for them to teach something they could get sued about.

And the government would be controlled by the same scared little sheep who ran away to the suburbs in the first place to get away from African Americans, the same scared little sheep who don't care about their right to privacy, so long as the scawwie terrorists are kept away. Why the hell would I trust the government to teach my children what is wrong or right, when the group in control of it hasn't the faintest clue?

Telling people to listen to your kids is hardly a moral, and your not going to find any one who disagrees with that, therefore no confrontation thus none of this "but my cultures morals don't believe in listening to your kids, who are you to tell me what to do" crap.

You would be surprised.

Any time ANYTHING like this, from sex ed, to anti-drug ed, to self-esteme programs, to parenting skills classes is brought up, there is ALWAYS someone who will object, and object loudly.

I think groin kicking should be taught in schools. :p

The social contract is a purely self-serving contract that says that as long as you don't stab me, I won't have my brother stab you. Nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with practicalism.


There is a lot more to it then that, if that was the only law governing the land it would still be a chaotic anarchy. Whether you are agreeing to abide by certain morals (do not kill each other, respect each others beliefs etc..) for practical reasons or not, it's still morals.


And the government would be controlled by the same scared little sheep who ran away to the suburbs in the first place to get away from African Americans, the same scared little sheep who don't care about their right to privacy, so long as the scawwie terrorists are kept away. Why the hell would I trust the government to teach my children what is wrong or right, when the group in control of it hasn't the faintest clue?

You're wildly over-exagerated take on the bush administration is irellavent, as they do not directly decide what goes into the school syllabus.

I think groin kicking should be taught in schools. :p
Oh HELL no! That gives you and your children an unfair advantage over everyone else! ;)

Oh HELL no! That gives you and your children an unfair advantage over everyone else! ;)

Exactly why children need a chance to learn it in a controlled setting. Because you know my kids will. ;)

You would be surprised.

Any time ANYTHING like this, from sex ed, to anti-drug ed, to self-esteme programs, to parenting skills classes is brought up, there is ALWAYS someone who will object, and object loudly.

Hmm, but do you think the stupid insane/extreme fundamentalist in the corner shouting "NO BLACKS ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE" should ruin everyone elses education? or have his views challenged?

There is a lot more to it then that, if that was the only law governing the land it would still be a chaotic anarchy. Whether you are agreeing to abide by certain morals (do not kill each other, respect each others beliefs etc..) for practical reasons or not, it's still morals.

No. Not really. The Social Contract is essentially agreeing to not do certain things in exchange for protection from others. Morals are what you believe are right and wrong. Right and wrong have nothing to do with the issue.

You're wildly over-exagerated take on the bush administration is irellavent, as they do not directly decide what goes into the school syllabus.

But you still fail to see the danger of putting the reactionary masses in a position to create more tyranny of the majority. The reason that we do things like this is to preven the rise of Orwellian group-think, so that moralist groups don't get to enforce their beliefs on impressionable children.

Also, schools are for facts and learning, not for morals. We need to have our children be able to trust that the information they are given there is accurate.

Edit: And Bush is a symptom of a greater illness.

When kids grow up and are kicked out in...er, move into the adult world, they are going to have to obey vertain principals if they don't want to make some enemies, some armed enemies.

1. Lying might get you wealth, but honesty let's you keep more.

2. If you want to move up in life, getting fired is counter-productive.

3. If you don't want to get fired, don't piss your boss off.

4. If you call people names, don't be surprised if your head gets blown off. Many people are armed, often illegally.

5. If you don't want to piss the boss off, be loyal. Don't give company secrets to the competition. Some of that company's money becomes yours on payday. Don't blow it.

Honesty is a moral. Loyalty is a moral. Not being a lazy fuck is a moral. Morals aren't confined to the realm of religion. Teaching good work ethics doesn't mean teaching homophobia. These morals will help you get successful more than assexual education or world history through peanut-butter carvings. These should be reinforced.

Don't go creating strawmen.

Hmm, but do you think the stupid insane/extreme fundamentalist in the corner shouting "NO BLACKS ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE" should ruin everyone elses education? or have his views challenged?
What I think doesn't matter, what does matter is that the same stupid insane/extreme fundamentalist in the corner always seem to have access to either deep pockets or lawyers that will work without the deep pockets, and have no qualms about forcing the district to go to court.

The district does not have deep pockets.

No. Not really. The Social Contract is essentially agreeing to not do certain things in exchange for protection from others. Morals are what you believe are right and wrong. Right and wrong have nothing to do with the issue.


That is morality, whether or not it is in exchange for protection or not. Morals are not always completely deontological, they can be based on completely consequentiallist reasons, like for the good of society.

[/QUOTE]
But you still fail to see the danger of putting the reactionary masses in a position to create more tyranny of the majority. The reason that we do things like this is to preven the rise of Orwellian group-think, so that moralist groups don't get to enforce their beliefs on impressionable children.
[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about putting the reactionary masses in power to decide what "family values" are taught.


Also, schools are for facts and learning, not for morals. We need to have our children be able to trust that the information they are given there is accurate.


As I said before, the things I have mentioned are pretty much facts. It is a fact that being an abusive father will have negative consequences for your kid, if you can find one thing wrong with teaching that to someone i'll eat my hat.

1. Lying might get you wealth, but honesty let's you keep more.
Telling the truth sounds good, but then we come to the argument of truth vs Truths, and what happens then?

2. If you want to move up in life, getting fired is counter-productive.
Schools can teach this, how?

3. If you don't want to get fired, don't piss your boss off.
But what about social responcibility, such as whistleblowing due to the company doing something seriously wrong and hiding it, shouldn't schools teach standing up for what is right, even if it pisses off your boss?

4. If you call people names, don't be surprised if your head gets blown off. Many people are armed, often illegally.
Oh just MENTIONING guns will get you dogpiled. Hard. By both sides. And there's a number of wingnuts out there who are currently pissed off that schools are limiting their freedom of speech to say that homosexuals are evil.

5. If you don't want to piss the boss off, be loyal. Don't give company secrets to the competition. Some of that company's money becomes yours on payday. Don't blow it.
See above.

Honesty is a moral. Loyalty is a moral. Not being a lazy fuck is a moral. Morals aren't confined to the realm of religion. Teaching good work ethics doesn't mean teaching homophobia. These morals will help you get successful more than assexual education or world history through peanut-butter carvings. These should be reinforced.
Granted that morals are not the sole domain of religion, but many religious people base theirs off of their religion and get very offended when told otherwise. Furthermore, again my question is, when on earth am I supposed to cover these concepts in class? I've got a full plate, Kat has a full plate, and we really don't need more time deducted from academics for more programs.

Don't go creating strawmen.
I wish I was, but the above were responces that I have seen when things like this have been brought up before.

It is a fact that being an abusive father will have negative consequences for your kid, if you can find one thing wrong with teaching that to someone i'll eat my hat.
Define abuse. Because THAT is where the argument is going to come from.

That is morality, whether or not it is in exchange for protection or not. Morals are not always completely deontological, they can be based on completely consequentiallist reasons, like for the good of society.

No it isn't. Morals are teaching what is right or wrong. The Social Contract is about what not to do, if you don't want to face consequences.

Who said anything about putting the reactionary masses in power to decide what "family values" are taught.

By teaching "values" you leave the door of legitimacy open to anyone who wants to insert their values into the discussion, so we get the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons dictating what our children should believe.

As I said before, the things I have mentioned are pretty much facts. It is a fact that being an abusive father will have negative consequences for your kid, if you can find one thing wrong with teaching that to someone i'll eat my hat.

As long as you teach it in a factual fashion in an appropriate class (Child Psych) along with citation, and have scientific data to back up the statement it is appropriate. What I object to is what the OP was talking about. He wanted "family values" to be taught as facts, when they are, in fact, subjective morals.

I think groin kicking should be taught in schools. :p

I taught my kids that on my own. I don't think they were harmed by it, besides the schools would teach them government sanctioned groin kicking, which would then interfere with my freedom to teach them my own particular faith-based groin kicking.

Define abuse. Because THAT is where the argument is going to come from.

Physically abusive. Even if it is undefined, that means it's not "zomgz enforcing morals onto people hooray!".

No it isn't. Morals are teaching what is right or wrong. The Social Contract is about what not to do, if you don't want to face consequences.


It's still an imperative, a command. Telling someone what not to do is similar, if not exactly the same as telling someone what is wrong or right.


By teaching "values" you leave the door of legitimacy open to anyone who wants to insert their values into the discussion, so we get the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons dictating what our children should believe.


Who says they have to have their values inserted into the discussion, their values is subjective. Harming or not harming your children is not subjective.


As long as you teach it in a factual fashion in an appropriate class (Child Psych) along with citation, and have scientific data to back up the statement it is appropriate. What I object to is what the OP was talking about. He wanted "family values" to be taught as facts, when they are, in fact, subjective morals.

I don't think any elementry school class is taught under such intense nanny state scrutiny anyway, why would learning how to raise your children well be any different?

Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.
You are surely a parody of conservatives.

Physically abusive. Even if it is undefined, that means it's not "zomgz enforcing morals onto people hooray!".
Actually we can get into a big argument about that. Look how long the spanking threads on NSG go for, look at the early part of this thread where we had folks saying that physical punishment should be brought back into schools and others crying abuse. And it would need to be defined or else it is naught but empty words.

Saying we should teach that child abuse is wrong is great, but when we get down to defining it... oh boy.

No.

Family values should be taught in the family.

And what's wrong with drinking around kids? A pleasant Riesling with supper isn't going to do anyone any harm, it will taste delicious, and de-mystify alcohol in the eyes of a child. If it doesn't hold a secret allure, they won't spend their time experimenting with it in an unhealthy fashion.

Actually we can get into a big argument about that. Look how long the spanking threads on NSG go for, look at the early part of this thread where we had folks saying that physical punishment should be brought back into schools and others crying abuse. And it would need to be defined or else it is naught but empty words.

Saying we should teach that child abuse is wrong is great, but when we get down to defining it... oh boy.

Well teach depending on the law, if the law says you can spank just say under our law it is ok to spank but do not take it too far and harm the child injustifiably etc... and if the law is anti spanking, just say you may not physically hit the child at all.

It's still an imperative, a command. Telling someone what not to do is similar, if not exactly the same as telling someone what is wrong or right.

It's not an imperitave. Nothing is stopping you from violating the social contract, let alone believing that the existing one should be changed, except for consequences. That's not morals. Good done at a gunpoint isn't good, it's just necessity.

Who says they have to have their values inserted into the discussion, their values is subjective. Harming or not harming your children is not subjective.

But this thread talks about "family values" which are the subjective moral issue, not about objective statements, like "Children who are beaten are two times more likely to grow up and commit crimes than children who are not."

I don't think any elementry school class is taught under such intense nanny state scrutiny anyway, why would learning how to raise your children well be any different?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Family values should be taught in the family.

What if the family teaches you to hate gays, beat your children and to get rid of your first child if it is a girl?

Then it's bad and very prejudiced.

What if the family teaches you to hate gays, beat your children and to get rid of your first child if it is a girl?

Hating homosexuals (as detestable and idiotic as doing so is) I cannot in good conscience do anything about(excluding attempting to persuade the individuals otherwise) unless that hate is put into action. Abusing children, though, is bringing harm unto another human being against their will and is totally unacceptable.

As far as getting rid of a first-born if it's a girl, well, if it's done through the proper channels, then I once again cannot stop it.

Well teach depending on the law, if the law says you can spank just say under our law it is ok to spank but do not take it too far and harm the child injustifiably etc... and if the law is anti spanking, just say you may not physically hit the child at all.
You're still going to have Rightously Pissed Off Parents(TM). California is enjoying that right now with the anti-spanking law that just got passed. Then once again, we get the court battles of one group claiming, "It's my right to disapline my child the way I see fit and a smack on the fanny does not constitute abuse. How DARE the school teach my child otherwise and contrary to my belief!" And the other side saying, "Hitting a child is nothing less than abuse that causes everlasting harm. How DARE the school not teach that to the children contrary to my belief!"

It's a can of worms that schools really shouldn't be opening.

They taught it in my dad's and mom's day and everyone came out fine.

What if the family teaches you to hate gays, beat your children and to get rid of your first child if it is a girl?
Again though, (in the US) we see the kids for less than 8 hours a day, Mon-Fri, for 180 days a year for 12 years starting at about age 6. Why do you think schools will have more infulence than their family who gets them the rest of the time and long before we see them?

It's not an imperitave. Nothing is stopping you from violating the social contract, let alone believing that the existing one should be changed, except for consequences. That's not morals. Good done at a gunpoint isn't good, it's just necessity.


Your analogy of good done at gunpoint isn't good is more about how it doesn't make you ethical to follow these laws just because you have to, not nescecerally(sp?) that the the laws are a-moral themselves.


But this thread talks about "family values" which are the subjective moral issue, not about objective statements, like "Children who are beaten are two times more likely to grow up and commit crimes than children who are not."


Family values in a very broad sense just means values to help ensure a happy/healthy family, it wouldn't be too hard to teach some basic principles that everyone can agree on based on this.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I'm saying that there is no need to have to scientifically show data backing up everything you say, they don't do that in normal elementry school classes so why this one?

Anyway it's been a good debate but I have to go to bed now. g'night.

You're still going to have Rightously Pissed Off Parents(TM). California is enjoying that right now with the anti-spanking law that just got passed. Then once again, we get the court battles of one group claiming, "It's my right to disapline my child the way I see fit and a smack on the fanny does not constitute abuse. How DARE the school teach my child otherwise and contrary to my belief!" And the other side saying, "Hitting a child is nothing less than abuse that causes everlasting harm. How DARE the school not teach that to the children contrary to my belief!"

It's a can of worms that schools really shouldn't be opening.

They wont have a case if what they teach is within the law.

They wont have a case if what they teach is within the law.
Perhaps not in the UK, but in the US... you know, the country that has a couple of court cases going on about teaching creationism or ID next to evolution in schools, no matter what the Constitution says... Not having a case hasn't stopped anyone before, and the littigation is very expensive for the district.

G'd night then and I'm sure we'll be here tomorrow to debate some more. ;)

It should be taught in both places. Family values in my generation was taught at school. The way that it was is that they made you respect your teachers and elders. If you did not it was a whack with a ruler on the hand. If you were really bad it was the principles office for a paddle. Another thing if you swore at school you were in deep crap. You were generally expected to have good manners while in school. If you didn't you would be taught to behave correctly. Things have got way to lax at schools in my opinion. Also things are to lax at homes. Repeal anti-spanking laws and allow the schools to turn the clock back on discipline.

At my grandmother's school, it was similar. She'd get a whack with a hickory stick if she spoke her native american language or "dressed Indian." This was because of course, being anything but a white christian didn't fit in with "family values."

No to "family values" being taught in school.

At my grandmother's school, it was similar. She'd get a whack with a hickory stick if she spoke her native american language or "dressed Indian." This was because of course, being anything but a white christian didn't fit in with "family values."

No to "family values" being taught in school.

I think the values being discussed don't exactly involve racism....or homophobia...or sexism. I think the values being discussed are the more universally accepted values of loyalty, honesty, etc.

I think the values being discussed don't exactly involve racism....or homophobia...or sexism. I think the values being discussed are the more universally accepted values of loyalty, honesty, etc.

Honesty is taught in the form of cheating is punished, that sort of thing. Loyalty - to whom or what? Why?

The problem is introducing "family values" in general opens the door to anyone's definition of what those values are and how they should be taught. It's a slippery slope due to the ambiguity - everyone has their own values.

I think the values being discussed don't exactly involve racism....or homophobia...or sexism. I think the values being discussed are the more universally accepted values of loyalty, honesty, etc.

those aren't family values, they are virtues, and would more likely be taught in a character class.

Trust me on this when I say you don't want to do that. Do you really want a bunch of crazy homophobes, racists, and radical christians to raise the next generation?

The problem of course, arises when schools start teaching stuff like abstinence instead of real sex ed.

I believe we should probably pass a law granting schools immunity from lawsuits related to teaching about sex. If the fucking Army gets a free ride, I don't see why sex ed shouldn't.

Well, those are their family values, aren't they? And it's no different than from what's been taught since the beginning of time.

I just don't think that in addition to teaching the literary elements, I have any business telling Johnny or Susie or Ahmed or Consuelo how to live their lives outside of my classroom.

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.
I don't know where you live, but in my country we have a significant percentage of high school students still unable to read and write in their native language, and unable to display basic math skills. The majority of high school graduates do not understand many of the most fundamental scientific theories and principles. The majority of voting adults in my country cannot correctly identify the role of the Secretary of State.

Forgive me, but I think we've got some more important priorities than indoctrinating children into "family values." Particularly since "family values" has long been a code-word for "traditional sexist, racist, and homophobic values which are aimed at maintaining a status quo that is only actually favorable to a minority of moneyed white males."

This question really refers to that should people be taught that raising children in a positive environment is best, that they should not drink around the children, show them that you make mistake like them, try to have empathy for them, and that after a divorce you should not try to separate them utterly from their parent and/or other parental figure, unless if that person was either a criminal or a just a bad parent and person period.

No of course not, we are all differant with differant values, and differing beliefs. We cannot then expect the shools to teach the kids all the same vaules.

What would happen if the parants didn't agree with the vaules that the schools were trying to instill? Who gets to choose which values are taught?

Nope there are far too many problems, the least of which being the perception of the pearants about their role in bringing up their kids.