Posts by briansmall

Other (ME .. bwahahahahaaa ...)

Now, more of what I think, about what you think. I believe we both see a complex, "multi"-plexed range of shades and colors. But, society does not "function" and people do not coexist, peacefully, unless their are rules and standards; and these do not "function" unless they delineate the shades we will consider black and those we will treat as white. What can not be done, and what must be done. Every "shade" we attempt, multiplies disagreement and conflict. Personally I want the fewest possible musts and can'ts, and the greatest individual liberty that functions and makes sense.

I also "recognize" how others see things differently; but many "see" a difference between how wrong it is to assualt someone for being black/gay/spanish/etc. and assaulting me to take my wallet; they are wrong, and I am not going to simply accept it. Many are happy to "see" a difference between whether Connor Peterson's life is terminated by Scott or Lacy. For him, it's a second murder charge. For her, it's medical treatment to remove the equivalent of a wort (I am not defending Scott. I am defending a coherent understanding of justice); whether it's tissue or a person CAN'T be a "personal choice". In other words, some "points of view" shouldn't be accomodated.

On another couple of points; I've come to agree with one of your theories, though not exactly as you apply it. The current, and scary, autism rates support your idea that our genetic evolution is lagging …

(spoken by a republican)

"I'd like to see a woman win this time."

A couple of fish should suffice.

I see people with babies in their grocery carts, but I've never seen any on the shelves. I think you have to ask for them. That's where Marge got Maggie.

All of the software and games that I download come with a license. Even fonts that I download usually have have a license or contract included in a text file. I choose to honor those licenses. The software that I sometimes get from Sarah is stuff that she no longer uses because she always wants the latest.

The real bottom line here though is about knowingly stealing someone else's work whether it be software or music. And if I am willing to steal by justifing that no one gets hurt, then how many other things can I justify away? Is it ok for me to kick a dog because no one else knows? Then if I get away with abusing a dog, is it ok to abuse a child? How about then when I go rob a convience store or a bank or just snatch some little old lady's purse? I will probably be able to justify that as well. And where will it end?

Are you saying there is NO rule of society, no common desire of the masses that you have not chosen to ignore? Ever?

After re-reading, maybe I did mis-interpret those statements. If I read the answers as if they were spoken from a pirate's point of view, then you are right.

Tthanks for re-reading, but I don't quite agree with your interpretation.

This is not about pirates, it's about whether the system of rewards; the law that we have set up, is adequate to keep the bulk of society appeased. Our law is a contrivance, it's not natural law.

Who hasn't done at least one of these?

Run a red light? Cut into the middle of the intersection so you wouldn't get caught at the red? Cut in and out of traffic disruptively? Failed to legally use your turn signals? Tossed your cigarette out the window? Smoked closer than the lawful distance of a non-smoking area? Cheated a little on your taxes? Divorced? Spit on the sidewalk? Played your music loudly enough to disturb others? Driven when a bit tipsey? Cheated on your spouse?

The list could go on and on, but ANY infraction of the laws of society simply sets you up as a hypocrit if you hold yourself above others who have broken a different rule.

Shades of grey can always be rationalized.

My point is that society can NOT provide a set of rules that will "work" for everyone. such rules are only guidelines. The more people that follow them, the easier it is for everyone. But damned near everyone breaks various rules as …

""Here, just take it and pay me if you want to, but if you choose not to, that's okay, it must be my fault for not making it good enough to make you want to actually pay for it"?

Not at all. What is being placed on the table for discussion, (among other things) is intellectual property rights, a social invention that brings problems with it.

If I work for you and you don't pay me, I leave, go to an "honest" employer. That's easy. If I work for myself, create a program that no one pays me for I still have the same option. I've just chosen employment that isn't working for me.

It is predicated on the notion that I have exclusive rights to something that I cannot actually control. That is a concept that is not supported by natural law.

As long as it works, (well enough) fine. When it does not work well enough, we will have to find a better way.

The laws we have created for our endeavor (social group) are not working as we'd like.
Eventually we will have to face the truth .. blaming those who don't conform (those who cause disruption) can only lead to more and more prisions, or worse, it doesn't fix the underlying problems.

"Since you want to dissemble on the philosophical nuances of "owing", perhaps you may want to consider the implications if no party ever felt they had …

You are entirely correct in this part. The concept of "owing" something is entirely an invention of our society. However, it's also a requisite to be in our society. If you can't live with the burden of owing somebody what society says is their due, then you are not fit to be in our society.

Finally, someone who has an understanding of how things work.

You use the word requisite. I invite you to take a look at that concept as well.

It is a requisite only to the degree that it is enforced.

When the inventions of the social organization no longer serve it, it is time to rethink them.

If you understand what is transpiring, you can address the issue intelligently. If you only look at superficial symptoms, then you cannot.

>>Life does not come with a guarantee. You could work for me for two weeks and drop dead. Who would I owe? (No one.)
Yes you would -- you would owe the dead person's estate. If you don't pay up then his estate can sue you for the wages and anything else you might own him.

>>You work for me for two weeks, then I drop dead. Who would owe you? (No one)
Same answer as above, for your estate owes me the money and I can sue your estate if it won't pay up.

>>Maybe the work you've done for me is really of no value at all. Do I owe you for it?
doesn't matter what the work I did was worth as long as I fulfilled the contract I had with you. If I fulfilled the terms of the contract then you owe the money.

You're just repeating the party line here. You haven't addressed one iota of the underpinnings of my discussion.

You've just layered one more "magic word," estate,on top of the argument, as though that magically addresses what lies under what I'm saying. It does not.

You have completely missed the point.

So, in the hypothetical situation that I hire you, and you work for two weeks and then if I refuse to pay you, it's the same thing. I don't owe you, because you didn't get anything either way:
- I did the work myself
- I got you to do the work
Now, you can say that I'm legally obligated to pay you, and you're right!! (finally.) Of course, the guy who installed Photoshop is also legally obligated to pay Adobe. So your argument doesn't hold much water...

Consider:

You think someone owes you anything? Ever?

Life does not come with a guarantee. You could work for me for two weeks and drop dead. Who would I owe? (No one.)

Don't like that one? Okay, try this. You work for me for two weeks, then I drop dead. Who would owe you? (No one)

Okay, how about this? One job might pay you $10/hr, the next job might pay you $100 .. doing the same thing. Is the a "measure" of the "worth" of your work? No, what there is, is an expectation. Maybe the work you've done for me is really of no value at all. Do I owe you for it? Or do I owe you onlybecause we had a contract? Then what is really
owed at any time?

Finally, consider this: Say I work for you for 2 weeks, then the "bomb" (atom bomb) drops, wiping out all …

It's got nothing to do with "evil companies" "forcing you", but with your own laziness if you are too stupid to keep up with trends in your chosen field of work.

I've heard every lame excuse for piracy a thousand times, and none of them make any sense except maybe to hardline communists and then only as a means of destroying the "bourgeois capitalist imperial system" as preparation for "the communist world revolution" which will inevitably lead to "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and "the destruction of the bourgeois oppression of the masses".
All ideas that died an untimely (in that they should have died a century before) death with Stalin.

You are entitled to your opinion of course, I think it's as good as most, in fact, you make some great points.

But if you're going to call someone dumb, how 'bout if someone calls you a liar?

I would (almost) bet a years pay you have not "heard every lame excuse for piracy a thousand times".

I'll bet you've heard a few or several, some of them more than once. But I won't call you a liar because I could be wrong.

And even if I'm right, I would rather suggest that you have exaggerated rather than lied.

But think about this: Such exaggerations have the same effect as lies, they "get something for nothing".

Your exaggeration is placed in order to lend weight to your argument, where …

Hmmm, bugger! When the laptop has thebattery in it, all the power led's are lit but when I take the battery out, the whole thing goes dead, not a glimmer of anything! :-(

Well there you go. No power coming from the wall to the pc. Your power supply is not putting out, or the LapTop is not accepting it.

Check all contacts, on the LT and from there out to the wall socket. Make sure power is at the wall socket with a lamp or some such.

If so, see if you can check for power from your power unit with a voltmeter.

They do die, sometimes. Contacts can break or get bent.

My my, you are opening yourself up on this one.

(Isn't Bush regarded as a joke?)

Hi all, just found this forum and I could do with some help! :-) My wife has an old Time laptop, bought on Ebay second hand,about a year ago. Recently, over the last week or three it's started randomly shutting down - instantly, like the power went off suddenly. Tonight it did that and now won't start at all. When the power lead is plugged in, all the power leds are on as normal but pressing the on swith just results in a momentary flicker of activity then nothing. No screen messages, post - zilch!
Now, when we bought it the battery was past it's best and wouldn't hold a charge. My wife didn't mind as she simply ran it from mains all the time. I know nothing much about laptops never having worked on one or owned one before so I'm wondering if the battery finally becoming totally dead would cause this? I'm kinda guessing that the power supply cable supplies power the battery that in turn powers up the rig and that if the battery is sooo dead it maybe can't give out enough juice to start the computer. Is this possible or am I talking rubbish (I often do!) I'd like to have an idea before we start trying to track down a new battery for this slightly vintage machine!
I can't see any signs of cables or components not seated/plugged properly.
Many thanks for any thoughts/tips

The laptop should start without the battery …

Babies come from an egg in mommy's belly. I stopped eating eggs right then and there.

Eh. Have you ever seen a partially developed chicken in an egg just broken into the pan?

We raised chickens, and we (kids) would occasionally miss getting an egg until it was partially incubated.

That's enough to put you off them for a while.

sussed it out means youve got it e.g "i finally sussed out how to beat the last level in my computer game" or that you have checked something out e.g "i sussed out that new resturant and it looks good"

the second example leads me to believe that the words is derived from black london slang, possibly due to the "sus" law where police could arrest you if you were "suspicious" but there was massive corruption and racism and people hated it especially black people as they were picked on by police unfairly just because of thier skin colour

thanks

parents may try and hide it from you but the truth is that you hear all about sex in the playground from other kids (there not that innocent after all ;) ) who either found out from thier older brothers, sussed it out or were told. You usually understand the basic idea of it from a early age due to this.

We don't have that Brit term, "sussed it out" in the US, that is, I'd never heard it. Is sus / suss a stand-alone word or does it derive from something else?

Just curious to know what you were all told by your parents as kids as to where babies come from.

My parents were always rather blunt with me on such topics but im curious to hear what sort of lies other people where told to "preserve innocence"

Originally there was cutesy reference to "the stork, but "Mommys belly" was the explanation starting around the age of three, when a direct question was asked.

I was surrounded by cats and dogs and various birds (and their babies) early on. There was no reason to hide the truth. As the questions were formed, the answers were given.

>they feel there's an inequitableness that pervades the transactions
>of life, so they set out to even the score on their behalf.

I don't think it's nearly as noble as you suggest. Given the many wonderful shareware programs out there that are extremely inexpensive for what they give you (and the payment is optional), disturbingly few people actually donate.
...
Perhaps my view is more cynical, but I think people are just too cheap to support developers, big or small. They're too cheap to buy a CD when they could download MP3s.

>While we can agree that theft is generally wrong, I wonder if you
>can acknowlege that there are circumstances that can justify it?

Certainly. However, even if the justification is there it doesn't mean one should take advantage of it. A brilliant example that comes to mind is from the movie Cinderella Man (if you don't mind me using glamorized hollywood events) where James Braddock forces his son to return stolen food despite the fact that the family was poor, freezing and starving, and he was risking losing his children to uphold is ideals. People like that do exist, and they makes the ones who can throw away their morals when life gets hard look ridiculous.

Naturally I can't expect everyone to uphold their morals when things get difficult. Hell, I can't even expect that when it's not difficult. Other posters in this thread proved that.

Okay, nice stuff. In no particular order .. …

> I modify your situation slightly:

Let's examine the eminently possible, let's say that the program does not quite work exactly the way Narue intended, that there is a bug in it, and this bug causes 10,000 people who pirated the software to spend 6 hours each researching and fixing the problem. Of course, Narue was smart enough to put a disclaimer on her package, she tells the illegitimate users to piss off. It costs her nothing, but then again, she didn't make anything either, so she basically breaks even for the business venture. Lets still say that every one of these people who lost 6 hours lost $1,000 as a direct result of this software failure (they couldn't continue using the pirated software and ultimately had to buy a less suitable piece of software for considerably more than Narue was charging).

Is there a "fair" exchange occurring?

Rationalizing any crime is a very slippery slope. I would argue that to successfully rationalize a crime you have to ignore possibilities that end up hurting people you don't want to hurt. That's the only way to make such actions palatable unless you're psychotic and simply don't care what kind of damage you do.

I agree, "rationalizing any crime is a very slippery slope". But what about trying to examine the crime, and for that matter, the slope itself?

In direct answer to the question "Is there a "fair" exchange occurring?" in your version of the scenario, the answer is, for …

Simple answer Yes.

But it also depends on the situation and place. If I'm in public then I will avoid spanking my kid. I also tell him why I need to spank him and he (3.5 years old) usually undertand and accept it.

Now I was thinking, it looks like he's not afraid getting spank anymore :(

As you probably have determined, if he's not afraid of being spanked, then it's time to abandon the practice.

I want to weigh in on this one. I may be sorry for this.

First, I think there might be different issues at stake within the realm of piracy that are not being addressed here.

Certainly Narue should be paid for her programming services.

So let's say that Narue writes some code, it takes her 32 hours, and she is paid $4000 for doing so. Both parties agreed, she was paid a reasonable sum, and, the buyer gets to use that code forever to do a repetitive task. Narue keeps the rights.

So far, so good. Narue got what she asked for, and a very clear transaction occured.

Now, lets say that Narue chooses to package that same program and sell it for $100 a pop on the internet. She hires a service which costs her $5 each to cover the cost of each cd. She sells 40,000 copies. She's now cleared over $3,804,000 for the original work. Ummmm?

Of course, Narue is happy about this, but does the equation make any sense? In our culture, yes. In a system of barter, no. (Where is this headed?)

Now, let's examine the impossible, let's say that the program does not quite work exactly the way Narue intended, that there is a bug in it, and this bug causes 10,000 people to spend 6 hours each researching and fixing the problem. Of course, Narue was smart enough to put a disclaimer on her package, she …

not long ago ... my Brother in law taught his the 12 year old son... when answering the phone to someone say a Marketer ... to be very rude to them to get them not to call their home... I was more than appalled .. it shocked the crap out of me.. when I said this to my sister ... she told me well its his right to have an opinion... ummmmm no he is 12 he has no opinion yet its theirs he has.... this is not the first time I heard this ... other parents have said this too... teaching their kids to be rude to whom they please... because its their right... well sorry Its not.... where did good parental guidence go ?

Well you are right, 12 year old sons are particularly susceptable to such input. but look at it another way, the kid probably loves having "someone" that he is allowed to be rude to. In other words, behavior that is just itching to come out has a place.

Telemarketers have chosen to be rude to you. They chose the job, they are exhibiting very rude behavior.

The father has taught his son that it's okay to use the expediency of rudeness to people who are being rude to you. Maybe it's not the best lesson he could give, but it's certainly not the worst.

It's certainly not the same as being "rude to who you please."

Amen. But buying into a lie is only "moral" failing if you sell yourself the crap. At least Joe Camel is subject to truth in advertising.

They also deny the choices which MUST be made; as your friend discovered.

"Why can't I have everything?" does have a response; even if you don't want to hear it.

It would seem that I see more shades of grey than you. (In addition, color.) People just don't generally "see" in black and white. They can be trained to, but it's not all that common. I can usually, but not always, but I'm driven to look for it.

I recognize "how" others see things, and that it's often different from how you or I see it. Moreover, I see why this is so, and accept it as simply part of the "human condition."

It explains "misunderstanding" much more often than most people realize. Generally they simply believe themselves to be right, and the other guy to be wrong. "You're right from your side, and I'm right from mine" has no meaning to many. In this case, I am applying the notion of "right" to the fact that we each have a point of view that is supported by what we have experienced and learned.

The problem is that all to often we don't want to look further than our own point of view.

No, I'm talking about parental authority and OVERSIGHT as it was for centuries.
Parents can't stop kids behavior??? Our parents sure did. And if parents can't, then it can not be done. And if it can not be done, then civilization is doomed; because kids are not going to socialize themselves. Our congress is already discovering that the social skills picked up by toddlers on their own are insufficient.

And you are making a HUGE assumption that the oversight is no longer happening. I disagree, right there. You only "feel" it is not happening, because of the other that lead you to believe this.

I say that parents care and are doing all they can, (given their particular skill-sets). They just can't make the all of the difference you think they can and should.

I say too that it has become harder, but not because proportionally "less" parents care, but simply because it is, indeed harder to parent today than it was 60 years ago.

Finally I say that the ratios have not changed all that much in terms of how many bad parents, and how many bad children they are, BUT that the actions of society make it look as though things are a lot worse.

Fear is a great motivator. It is insinuated into most advertising and is a primary factor in commerce. "Madison Avenue" has known this for a LONG time, but has become extremely proficient in using it. There is a …

I am sorry to hear this, sincerely. It is obvious that she is someone you care enough about that you hurt as well.

It's not that I think she is a bad person; actually the opposite. And I will pray (hope this doesn't offend) that she finds a way to accept herself, including the mistakes. I haven't found it easy to accept some of my own.

But having a conscience requires that some decisions be "struggled" with. We've been avoiding the struggle by shedding our conscience. I can't stop it, but I think it will cost us more than we realize.

She struggled. She lost. Not for lack of morals or a moral upbringing, but for the times she was in and her inability to comprehend the scope of her decision. She would have had no such opportunity to make the poor choice 40 years earlier.

And I must stress this, it wasn't her parents who failed her.

I'll tell you what failed her in a nutshell: "Womens Lib" ... before anyone think I'm against equality for women, heaven forbid, I am not.

But the movement created a sense in millions of young people that career was very very important, and that families could, and should be "planned" ... and that means abortion. Although unidentified at the time, the movement was a stronger force in her life than her parents could bring to bear with their moral instruction, and to her young mind it made sense. Now, …

I think I have the difference.
Brian, you state:"there is underlying cause for the behavior that needs to be addressed."
THIS is a significant point of disagreement between us. And it really does have to do with simplicity.

I believe the "behavior" needs to be addressed. We can discuss the "causes", but the behavior HAS to stop. And while I suspect you will argue the practicality, I will tell you what I used to tell my employees; understanding is optional.

In other words, society doesn't give a damn "why" you stop at stop signs. Whether you do it because it's a rule or because an evil squirrel will attack you if you don't has absolutely no practical impact on society.

Identifying why our society is becoming more violent and dishonest is not going to save our society. Stopping the violence and dishonesty is what will do that. The ONLY authority able to ensure that children learn character and decency are the parents; further, since it was their choice to have the children, I find it reasonable that they accept this responsibility.

No other influence CAN override the affect of parents; but parents CAN override the affect of every external influence. Yes it is hard; that's one reason I didn't have kids.

Authority? Parents can not "stop" kids behavior. they cannot do so in practice, they certainly can not any longer do it by the law. If you were to have kids Bob, not one, but at least two, …

Brian,
First, NO I was NOT referring to "you". But who do you think is "providing" children the access to these games, CD's, movies and the like?

True, we have fundamental disagreement on "responsibility". And I do believe that you are sincerely presenting a "considered" opinion. So while it may not be apparent, I AM trying to understand how we come to such different conclussions; while seeing many of the same things.
That said, I believe we, as a society have become corrupt; and yes, abandon our moral "obligation", along with most of our "sense".
I've just deleted another attempt to support my position. I will instead try and concisely identify a flaw in your reasoning.
Fact: there is a market for a book on parenting by Lynne Spears. I will assume that the implications on society of her "teaching" how to parent is as clear as a Vegas marquee. My question to you has to do with those people we both know WILL purchase, consume and apply her "expertise"; there will be enough to make it a profitable publication, and even one will diminish the human gene pool. What external influence do you believe made those people stupid enough to want to know how she did it? (please acknowledge, it WILL sell a lot of copies)
I've enjoyed the discussion though.
Thanks, (BTW, I don't have to have the last say. so feel free if you wish)

Nice. Let's see what I can …

Yea, a long post from Scru. I love it.

Scru, I don't need to repeat myself, this thread and "Should Kids Be Spanked" have an over-abundance of my thoughts on the subject.

As I've said repeatedly, "It's easy to blame, it's much harder to see the underlying cause." Blame simply does not help. But finding the underlying causes (and they are many and complex) can be beneficial. By having done so, one has contributed to the solution, rather than simply offsetting the blame to some "other party".

Not that you have stated otherwise, in my opinion, blaming "the parents" is no different from blaming "hollywood" ... Both contribute to the problems, but it's deeper than that; there is underlying cause for the behavior that needs to be addressed.

I do not believe that anyone "(relies) on hollywood to teach them." But there's a buck to be made, and hollywood is pursuing it, and it is definitely influencing behavior.

And, there has always been a cross section of the parenting skills you so aptly refer to. The question on the table is whether there is more or less of it. I say it's probably about the same, and that our problem actually lies elsewhere.

But first, we'd have to define what the problem is.. (I don't think it's morality that is really at issue, and you can be assured that my thinking does not end there.)

I'm glad you weighed in, I particularly like …

What I believe is now completely different is our expectations.

Brian, you see 13 year old children "acting" imancipated as a result, caused by it's social acceptance (at least by sufficient concensus). I see parents allowing this to happen as a result, caused by a critical mass of parents who refuse to accept responsibility for the result of excercising those reproductive "rights" they claim.
What is different is that for (I believe) the first time in history, a significant portion of those breeding would rather not know if their daughter got pregnant.

Tell the folks what either one of OUR dads would have done if they found out someone performed an abortion on their little girl without telling them? You know damn well that legalization would not have saved that doctor.

The "differences" you speak of did not happen TO us; they were corrupted BY us.

Yes, our dads would have shot the doctor, dead. No question. And in my opinion, that would have been "right." Still no question, for me. And it is still just as dispicable today. That has not changed. The sort of morality that we are discussing does not yield to, or change with the times.

And I understand what you mean by "BY us", yes, of course it is people who "allow" these things to happen, and certainly it is preceeding generations who set the stage for generations to follow.

But "We" did not, could not possibly have foreseen the affect that …

Wow. That was good stuff. Thanks for your insight.

Welcome to the new moronity.

The kids are picking this stuff up from:
The movies; that you buy them and allow them to watch.
The music; that you buy them and allow them to listen to.
The games; that you buy them and allow them to play.
The advertising; that you teach them to believe more powerfull than their own will.
Watching everyone else do it; because now if everyone else jumps off a cliff, apparently, you must also.
We are poor helpless victims; ever since those who breed stopped COUNTERING every one of these things with maturity-appropriate filtering/coaching/lessons/explanations and character building education; a.k.a. "parenting".
Morals didn't need to be taught. They were an "aspect" of ALL that was taught.
Morals have not declined. They have been abandoned.

No Bob, please get a grip. I agree we must try, but I say that many people lack the skills. You can call them morons if it makes you feel better somehow, I prefer to call them ill-equipped.

I don't know who you mean by "You" .. you can not be talking about me because you don't have any idea how I raised my children and for that matter how they turned out.

Somehow you seem to have it in your head that kids live in a bubble created by their parents and that nothing else impacts them. Not so.

Regardless of what the parents do and say, kids will be …

Huh what?

I meant you guys are simply too smart, seriously. VBScript does not even have a section on DaniWeb. BTW, I did not ask for help, I only looked for it, I'm sure someone would have been glad to help. But finding no quick answer, I worked it out myself.

I am not a decent programmer, I look for help first. Believe me, I know my limits, and coding is not likely to ever be my strong suit. I get seriously confused by the concept of methods and processes. I cannot read a manual. Honestly, my mind will not process paragraphs of esoteric information. Syntax blows my mind, I can't see the logic of it. My mind just doesn't "work that way" and never has.

Frankly, if I had not done it, I would not be able to imagine that I could make a living doing computer support for 30 years. It's all greek to me. But I know how to ask questions, do research, and perservere. I don't even have a workable memory. I have to ask people what I did for them last time, and / or write everything down that I think I'll need to know later.

What I do "get" is people. That figures in prominently, because that's primarily what I'm working with. I enjoy them, I enjoy helping them. Computers are just the tools they use, and I am willing to go where they don't want to go. And, I know I will …

Bob, Narue and I got off to a bad start. I worked hard to curb my frustration, I felt my point was being lost in the flames. I don't know what she experienced.

I have researched her some (she has a blog here, and she is incredibly well spoken and clearly very intelligent. So something "about me" "set her off". Maybe a misinterpretation, maybe my "type" of personality, maybe something I said that she misinterpreted, maybe she has an inclination to agree with someone else who took exception and didn't read too closely, maybe she is just inclined to see things in a way that seems confrontational. Maybe none of the above.

But I know I have done all those things before.

That said, since then we have had some exchanges that were not bad. This forum is too small for me to let it get to me. Differences of opinion, even flame wars need not be the end of things; can be forgotten.

No Bob, the it's different argument does not run in circles. It addresses the fact that differences are what they are - differences. You just don't think they matter.

Civilization has not advanced for 10,000 years. It is hardly appropriate to call neolithic man civilized.

All in my lifetime, just three generations:

I have watched this planet increase threefold in my short span here. I was 5 before the first transatlantic air cargo tranportation was established. I was 9 when the first transatlantic telephone cable was laid.

Just 10 years before I was born, there were only 200 televisions in use in the entire world. When I was born, maybe one in 25 homes in America had a TV (mine was not one of them) and you might remember the content, it was, well nothing compared to today. When I was 10 we still did not have tv, and that still was not uncommon. In my twenties I was making circuit boards for the first electronic - hand held calculators, and wrist watchs.

For the approximately 4 billion years preceding, there were no such things. Today I can talk instantly to virtually any point on the planet using a telephone I carry in my pocket. I can know within minutes of activity in every major population center on earth.

Of course WWI and WWII had profound influences on the children. But up to 50 years ago all wars were fought under very similar conditions, …

It's not "just" two words.

It's
Two words
^ .... ^
1 ..... 2

Plus
a picture
and something else altogether.

Very good. I hadn't seen that.

Too many of us aren't "raising" our kids at all.

Cities with 10's of thousands have existed for thousands of years; cities of millions have existed for hundreds. And every last one of them, every race, culture, social order, economic system, "trained" their children to conform to society, NOT the other way around; until about 2 generations ago.

"Evolution" is what happened throughout the 10,000 years between those cave dwellers and a few generations ago.

What has happened this past few generations is NOT evolution; it is complete and total overhaul of every last bit of what DID evolve over the past 10,000 years. This was justified by a baseless assertion, not that cavemen did it wrong; but that EVERY SINGLE generation prior to this "enlightened" group was wrong.

If the objective is to "socialize" what you breed, then it does "work". But the "it's different now" rewrite hasn't worked.

Any "real" difference is incremental, not total. THAT is "evolution".

How fun.

Where do I start? You make my point for me: "What has happened this past few generations is NOT evolution; it is complete and total overhaul of every last bit of what DID evolve over the past 10,000 years. " (thanks)

And it is EXACTLY these "few generations" of which you speak in which the bulk of the changes have occurred.

Bob, you and I certainly weren't here ten thousand, or 2,000 or even 200 years ago, we really don't know how kids behaved in …

Thanks. The first link worked, the second does not. I'll check it out the one that works.

Thanks. You're spot-on here.

I do enjoy stirring things up a bit (for purposes of getting into a good discussion), although I don't enjoy the angst at all. I get more or less what I have come to expect.

I haven't found any better forums, not that I've looked much. (I stumbled on DaniWeb while trying to resolve a nested-if problem I had. I didn't find the solution here, (VBscript is below you guys and) so I ended up setting a true false and testing it. (I'm not much of a programmer.))
Anyway, I saw the Geeks lounge and barged in, you know the story from there.

I've (pretty much just) stumbled in to 4 or 5 such forums in my years on the net (my computer support career pre-dates the internet as-we-know-it by a fair amount) so you can see I haven't been all that active in looking for them.

Any suggestions?

>There is no quick solution.
That's a rational opinion. The appropriateness of spanking (since that's the topic of this thread) is situational, though I get the impression that too many people see it as a malicious beating rather than a means to bring attention to wrongdoing. I'm sure to get heat for this, but spanking a kid is just like smacking a puppy on the nose to train it. It's just painful enough to get their attention and inform them that they did something wrong. Assuming the requisite measure of intelligence they'll learn not to do it again.

Lack of training results in lack of experience, and hence, lack of discipline. It's better to learn these lessons early, so my opinion is that I should have the option of spanking my child if I feel it's needed.

I'd wager that I've come across as thinking that spanking does no good, but I agree with you.

I was spanked, and I've spanked. While my spankings did me no harm, they probably did me some good. As someone pointed out earlier, there were not that many spankings, like maybe 5 or 6 of them for each of us in our childhood.

One of them was completely inappropriate, and I remember it to this day, but it was the exception. One of my syblings did something, and we were given a chance to confess. We all got a swack (with the belt) then asked "who did it" again, followed by …

>What worked in cave man days is no longer workable.
Then what would you suggest?

I have no suggestion for the problem. There is no quick solution.

The only thing I can say about how things could become better is in one of two ways: By chance, or by education. Education starts (I think) with looking clearly at what is going on. That's all I try to do, and what I attempt to do with others.

I suppose you think you are funny. This post has no value to me.

Jesus H. Christ... Does that represent a decline in morals with me saying that?

I do have a question, though... And I'm not trying to jump into this flame war, but instead provide some perspective... Does it really take all these 500+ word posts to respond back to a quip, or even to the subject at hand? Verbosity tends to be ignored, whereas someone can have greater impact by being succinct.

Well, there's discussion, and there's one-liners. One liners certainly present a point of view, but without supporting it. I like to support my point of view, that is, I prefer discussion to simple statements, I like to explain why I believe as I do, not just what I believe.

I can usually support my position fairly quickly, but I have found generally in forums such as this that that is not what people want. They want one liners.

If verbosity were only ignored, as is often the case, that would be that. But often, it is attacked. I have my theories on why that is, but will say only this: One liners are "safe", while having to explain yourself takes work, and is risky. (You might get proved wrong).

What I have seen is this: If my explanation "goes against the grain" or is too far off the norm, I often am challenged. This elicits more explanation from me, which is all good and well if the challenge was sincere. But often the challenge is made …

When the grown-ups won't take charge, the children DO. And this is understood universally by all creatures, but one.

Very well put, and I'd agree if the human condition were not so different from the other creatures. It's too easy to fall into the fallacy of comparing human behavior with that of the other creatures in an attempt to solidify a point.

Any other creature you can name has but one "way" of life, evolved even as they evolved. Although any given group of other creatures may be impacted by outside influences, they deal with "life" in exactly the same way that they have done from their beginnings. Lets call this behavior "evolved responses".

Such evolution takes thousands upon thousands of years. But humans have changed their conditions so radically and so quickly in the last 10,000 years that their thus evolved responses no longer are in sync with thier conditions. External change is not the same as evolution of the creature, human or otherwise.

What worked in cave man days is no longer workable. While such "taking charge" will work in some conditions, there are gad-zillions of other conditions which we are all subject to that work against our evolved responses.

We aren't raising our kids in caves, with maybe 20 to 10 tribe members. We are raising them in cities with 10s of thousands, or millions of tribe members.

That is not true. Insulting is usually a good thing. The only kind of people that get affected by insults are those engaging in acts of self-deception. If one has an unjustifiably large opinion of himself, it is the duty of his fellow members of society to knock that opinion down. Those who recognize their flaws and accept their existence and those who have humility about their place in the world are not affected by insults. The truly delusional are not affected, either.

You seem to be one of the people with unjustifiably large opinions of themselves, based on how long your rambling posts are. If you felt any emotional reaction to the insulting nature of the previous sentence, then either the previous sentence is true or you are offended by the mere existence of people who are idiots. In the latter case, the former sentence is true anyway. If you felt no reaction, then you either recognize with humility that the sentence was true, or you believe that the sentence is false and that I just don't know what I'm talking about. If the latter is the case, then you are truly delusional.

If you feel affronted by the condescending nature of the preceding paragraph, then its first sentence is true. If you want to reply to this post, you are full of yourself for thinking I care about your opinion, or juvenile for caring what others think of your opinion, and so the sentence is true. Of course, …

You guys are hilarious in a sad way. You've learned every trick at bolstering your egos at the expense of looking at what others are actually saying. If you don't agree with someone, you attack the source, insisting along the way that you've been the one attacked. Meanwhile, the point that you took exception to gets lost in the haze of the confusion you create. I never attacked Narue. I did attempt to redirect her back to the issues, and in so doing escalated the situation. Such is the nature of some people. There are issues being discussed, some people are threatened by my words, and choose to insult me rather than address the content. This is pretty normal behavior among some people, they generally do attack what they don't understand or agree with. It's no different in the Geeks lounge.

Contrary to belief, I am not "full of myself" nor prone to insult, but of course, anyone who does not want to address what I say can always use that as their excuse for not being able to address the issues I put forth.

Yes, I do write more than most of you. That's because I believe in actually supporting my beliefs, rather than just posting one liners. I'm sorry people can't or are unwilling inspect their (or my)beliefs any deeper, and lay them out in order to have a real discussion. Tossing one liners about is so damned superficial.

Few people take responsibility for their …

Mankinds innate self-centeredness. In other words, mankind themselves. It is the nature of the majority of mankind to take more than they give, and in particular to show little regard for the repercussion of their actions where others are concerned.

There can be no world peace without a major upheaval of, for lack of a better word, compassion .. call it goodness. Man is not, on the whole, particularly good. Many people are, but, across the board, the behavior is self serving and short sighted without being tempered with concern for others down the line.

Greed. Hate. Desire.

rap music? anyone

These are my unfettered thoughts, provided with no supporting data: (I am usually willing to go the distance to support my opinions, but this is more in the realm of "What if?)"

While I shudder to think of rap as music, it falls into the realm.

Like all music, it is a result of a variety of forces. Of course, it often reflects the sensibilities of the times, and is often nothing much more than a marketing effort (Brittany Spears, anyone?)

But let us not forget that it provides an outlet for all of the emotions, including (but not limited to) love, rage, and rebellion. Does anyone remember how our parents felt about Elvis? They shuddered. And then, folk music and its progression into "protest" music? And, I'm here to tell you that Bob Dylan was not making fans of the over 30 crowd for the first several years.

Who of you are old enough to remember the drug songs of the 60s and 70s? Our parents were understandably concerned. Listening to he music, you'd have thought we were all going to die of drug overdose at the very least. And we listened to it with glee and joy, and with a certain guilty pleasure; that we were living a life that our parents forbid.

While many of us did the drugs, most of us didn't do them to the degree that the music suggested, and the musicins implored, if you will, …