What In The World Is Wrong With American Kids?

[AuH20]

Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

But how structurally sound are these termite hills? I could probably take them down with a shovel. These simple structures aren't built to last like modern day skyscrapers that are outfitted with the necessary horizontal and vertical support to withstand seismic activity as well as high altitude wind shear. Just examine the intricate process that goes into purifying and smelting steel. The animal kingdom is several notches below man in terms of intelligence, problem solving and application.

[MelissaWV]

But how structurally sound are these termite hills? I could probably take them down with a shovel. These simple structures aren't built to last like modern day skyscrapers that are outfitted with the necessary horizontal and vertical support to withstand seismic activity as well as high altitude wind shear. Just examine the intricate process that goes into purifying and smelting steel. The animal kingdom is several notches below man in terms of intelligence, problem solving and application.

If a giant alien swatted at a skyscraper with a shovel the size of 1/3-1/2 of the building, I don't think it would do so well. Similarly, if some giant anteater alien started to poke its face into the windows of the 50th floor or so, I really would fear for the people inside of the building.

Of course, this is more instinct than innovation, but still.

[PaulConventionWV]

Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

So why don't animals that are our own size create things as big and ingenious as what we create? Why don't they have the ability to use complex equations for optimal building of things they desire simply for the sake of recreation? We have amusement parks and seek knowledge while animals seek only to survive and reproduce. We are not the same as animals in that sense. We have a sense of special purpose that distinguishes us. No animal spends idle time jotting down their thoughts on the meaning of existence so that others can read it and also seek to understand the meaning of existence. What's more, they don't engineer tools that help them achieve the optimal design that will allow them the freer transport of information merely for the sake of understanding it. They don't mass produce idle time-wasters in the quest for capital. In fact, they don't even use capital.

[1stAmendguy]

You are correct. That is what I meant by modern science, by which I am implying a sort of pseudo-science which is popular but loaded with bias and fallacies. Naturalism is not part of science, although it is assumed to be so today, since we have been told the only legitimate science is that which reaches a naturalist conclusion.

And you don't think creationism to some degree is a pseudoscience? Creationism is not loaded with bias and fallacies? There are many touted theories in creationism which have no bases in scientific method. Can creationism provide evidence that a banana is perfectly designed by God for humans to hold in their hand.

[PaulConventionWV]

And you don't think creationism to some degree is a pseudoscience? Creationism is not loaded with bias and fallacies? There are many touted theories in creationism which have no bases in scientific method. Can creationism provide evidence that a banana is perfectly designed by God for humans to hold in their hand.

Creationism is not science. Neither is evolution. I am not trying to include my worldview in science, rather, I am trying to get naturalists to stop calling their worldview science.

I am also not claiming that there is no bias. Rather, I am trying to get people to understand that there is inherent bias in all interpretation or extrapolation of facts as it concerns origins. For instance, one person may see the similarities between living things and say that it is because they share a common ancestor. Another person may see the same similarities and say that it is because all living things share a common creator. It all depends on your interpretive paradigm. The bias of today's "science" is that it intentionally excludes any non-naturalist explanation.

[Zippyjuan]

But how structurally sound are these termite hills? I could probably take them down with a shovel. These simple structures aren't built to last like modern day skyscrapers that are outfitted with the necessary horizontal and vertical support to withstand seismic activity as well as high altitude wind shear. Just examine the intricate process that goes into purifying and smelting steel. The animal kingdom is several notches below man in terms of intelligence, problem solving and application.

Science is looking at how the termites create their structures for cement replacement:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/72896...infrastructure

Lusaka, 22 June 2007 (IRIN) - Engineers are mimicking the technology of termites to build cheap, durable, environmentally friendly and desperately needed road infrastructure in Zambia and, in the process, providing jobs at grassroots level.

The almost indestructible nature of termite mounds and the realisation that this technology could be adapted to build roads even more hard wearing than those made from asphalt came at the cost of a broken limb.

"The idea came from my best, best friend, a South African named Henry Halle, who, in his garden, tried to kick those [termite] hills away. On his third try he broke his leg," said Kim Anderson, a Danish national working in the Zambian capital, Lusaka. "After that he came to me and said, 'This is something! We need to replicate this technology for construction.'"

Anderson, a regional manager for a Danish air service company, secured financing from the European Union and the Danish government for a road construction pilot project in South Africa, based on termite technology, and a recent initiative in Zambia.

It is not the first time that termite technology has been used to build man-made structures: the Eastgate shopping centre in the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, was modelled on termite mounds, using the design for energy-saving ventilation;

In Europe architectural firms are researching and copying mound technology in the design of high-rise buildings, in an attempt to replicate the termites' ability to create climate control in their relatively mammoth structures

[PaulConventionWV]

Science is looking at how the termites create their structures for cement replacement:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/72896...infrastructure

There is a difference between ingenuity and being a building machine. Termites always create the same kind of structure. It's what they were made to do, and they always do it the same way with the same tools. What's more, termites aren't aware of what they're doing. The key difference between animals and humans is awareness. We are aware that there is something bigger than us, and that is why we constantly search for truth, regardless of its practical applications. We constantly seek amusement and pleasure, sometimes at the expense of what's practical and necessary for our survival. We don't just do what we need, we do what we want. Termites don't build for the artistic expression, nor do they even know why they build. They are simply programmed to know how. Know, in fact, is a strong word. They do not understand how their buildings differ from other types, so they don't really know what they are building. They are biological robots.

Also, animals have no individuality. We do, whether we want to or not. We stand apart from others. Have you ever seen an animal build a statue of another animal? Have you ever seen animals celebrate heroism? No, they simply function how they were made to function. We do pretty much the opposite.

[Revolution9]

Termites build incredible structures- compared to their size, some would be up there with our biggest skyscrapers. And the design includes air conditioning to control the interior temperature. Bees and wasps build elaborate structures. Many species build nests and shelters. Animals use tools- monkeys have been observed making and using spears to either kill prey or even attack each other and dig out grubs and termites from logs to eat. Birds use twigs for the same purpose. And are you saying that dogs are not compaionate?

Other examples: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2570.htm

Well you go right along and be an animal. I happen to belong to a higher functioning order of beings in the 3D laboratory Universe. The elaborate structures you speak of are one and the same across species. We can make any kind of structure we put our minds to. We even have the ability to understand cause and effect along an extended timeline and can engineer structures without having genetic blueprint for such. Of course, your political camp would love for us to view ourselves as animals so they can skin us for our fur.

Rev9

[jonhowe]

No, we are human beings. We don't have to fit into some grand category that includes other organisms on this earth. We are just... human.

We don't have to, but we do.

[jonhowe]

Of course, your political camp would love for us to view ourselves as animals so they can skin us for our fur.

Rev9

You realize we're in the same political camp, right? We're all here on a Ron Paul message board...

And PaulConventionWV, I've said this before, you're a really bright guy and I know your heart/mind are in the right place. I feel like we'd be friends in "real life". However, your lack of understanding of the natural world is really quite astounding. When you say things like "The key difference between animals and humans is awareness", and "Naturalism is not part of science," I can't help but shake my head.

[Revolution9]

You realize we're in the same political camp, right? We're all here on a Ron Paul message board...

ZippyJuan is a mouthpiece for the gubmnt and left wing agenda. He is not rude about it but he always has the official party line going on. So, no...we are not all on the same team. His team's ideology killed 700 million people in the last century.

Rev9

[LibertyEagle]

There is a difference between ingenuity and being a building machine. Termites always create the same kind of structure. It's what they were made to do, and they always do it the same way with the same tools. What's more, termites aren't aware of what they're doing. The key difference between animals and humans is awareness. We are aware that there is something bigger than us, and that is why we constantly search for truth, regardless of its practical applications. We constantly seek amusement and pleasure, sometimes at the expense of what's practical and necessary for our survival. We don't just do what we need, we do what we want. Termites don't build for the artistic expression, nor do they even know why they build. They are simply programmed to know how. Know, in fact, is a strong word. They do not understand how their buildings differ from other types, so they don't really know what they are building. They are biological robots.

Also, animals have no individuality. We do, whether we want to or not. We stand apart from others. Have you ever seen an animal build a statue of another animal? Have you ever seen animals celebrate heroism? No, they simply function how they were made to function. We do pretty much the opposite.

You were doing good until you got to the bolded part. You are wrong. Animals do have individuality. Each one is unique. If you haven't noticed this, you haven't interacted that much with animals.

[Nickels]

You were doing good until you got to the bolded part. You are wrong. Animals do have individuality. Each one is unique. If you haven't noticed this, you haven't interacted that much with animals.

I think he means they have no humanity or personality, no legal rights, or shouldn't have any.

[Nickels]

First you need a basic economics lesson that won't seem related at first, but will make sense later. If there are 100k people on a giant island with no outside contact, they would be relatively well off if they had 25k small homes. Average of 4 people in small homes. But I think we could all agree that they would be better off, or have a higher standard of living, everything else equal with 25k small homes and 15k larger homes. Same with # of cows, # of chickens, # of peppers, potatoes, eggplants, etc..

In other words, the more that is produced, the better off everybody is.

I don't think that's a bad definition. But how is that not a socialist advocacy argument. If material production is the primary measure of well being, assuming well being is a good goal to have.

So maximizing production is the most important thing in any society

Can't say I disagree. So why shouldn't the government or tax payers stimulate, encourage or otherwise force what is good and important?

, allowing people to choose freely what they may purchase and create.

That doesn't produce though. Choosing is not always productive.

If you can choose to be unproductive, why would you be productive?

If they have free choice, people will create more and be able to get the things they want.

No, they will create only as much as they want, and always demand what they want.

This is called growing the pie. If you can't get past that concept of growing the pie and how it increases standard of living, you won't get Austrian Economics.

Can't say I heard of it.

So back to education. Parents want their kids educated.

No, they don't. No more than they want kids to have jobs. People only do this because they are forced to by law or economic necessity. There are people who are curious for knowledge for knowledge's sake, this is much like people who enjoy music and art just for entertainment.

In a free society they will put as much resources into education as they believe will maximize their and their children's standard of living.

Agreed.

A rich person, not one who steals or commits fraud like bankers do today because that is not allowed in a free society

Your idea of freedom is freedom from fraud?

, but a rich person who creates a lot of items for people grows the pie and raises everybody's standard of living more than almost everybody else in the entire town. They use their wealth to invest back into their businesses which create even more items for everybody and make everybody's lives better. When the government instead steals from the rich person and puts it into schools, they are stealing future productivity and shrinking the pie, decreasing everybody's standard of living.

This is only true if you admit that education doesn't always increase standard of living, which is what you sounded like saying.

These resources would have been best served increasing the standard of living for everyone.

I totally agree. Not sure if we agree how to spend money to increase standard of living though. If your idea is "give people money and let them freely choose how to spend it" as quality living, then welfare recipients and section 8 people are living the dream. Welfare recipients can't choose mansion or fancy restaurants, but they sure as hell have lots of freedom for doing nothing.

As productivity rises in a society with low tax rates and an honest monetary system, people will have to work much less to have the same standard of living.

Funny, because that's been happening ever since the industrial revolution. Even with a dishonest money system.

Thus more free time for everybody and more time to dedicate to learning about our world.

So yes, in a free society it is never good for the government to take resources from everybody, especially the most productive (richest) and use them on education because it will not provide as high of a rate of return as investing back in their business.

Ok. I think I get it now. Basically you first establish a utopia, then you say "once I get to my imaginary utopia, then I can make my argument". So is it fair to say "before you get to your utopia, it's not always true that government is bad"?

If it did, then somebody would figure it out, it would be a business and it would already be happening.

isn't government investing in education and getting a nice return on their investment if their goal is to recruit more government employees?

The problem we have today is that many of the richest in our society are not productive,

agreed. sounds like you want to force them to be.

they have simply found government created loopholes to gain wealth by siphoning it from hardworking people, both rich and poor. Taking money from them and using it for education would likely create positive gains as compared to not. However we shouldn't model our economic system around a corrupt system, we should instead work on getting rid of the corrupt system.

it's not corrupt or undesireable if you're the one benefitting from it. So basically you're saying you want to shift the wealth today from the wrong people to the right people. You want to reward labor and hard work, not brains and trickery.

[MelissaWV]

From skimming through this thread, what is wrong with American kids appears to be that they are not termites.

Barring that, what is wrong with American kids might be that they have American parents.

[heavenlyboy34]

Compassion - Ever seen a pride of lions back off a young cape buffalo that was impaired by a leg injury?
Ingenuity - I'm patiently waiting for a 10 story condominium complex to be erected at the metro chimpanzee exhibit.

Don't forget language. And the cerebral cortex. And brain:body mass ratio.

[bolil]

The biggest thing wrong with American kids is that most of em have been sold out by their parents.

[ClydeCoulter]

The biggest thing wrong with American kids is that most of em have been sold out by their parents.

Who were sold out by theirs, if we are talking about grouping evey generation into a single entity.

I don't have the time for more on the subject right now, but "sociopaths" comes to mind if we want to bore down into smaller groups.

[thoughtomator]

When kids tried to bully me on the bus, the situations resolved themselves with many kicked testicles, poked eyes, screamed-out eardrums, and bloody bite wounds. One time a smaller but more aggressive kid tried to bully me and I nearly killed him.

The problem with kids these days is that they sit there and take it rather than fighting back.

[showpan]

[LibertyEagle]

I think he means they have no humanity or personality, no legal rights, or shouldn't have any.

But, they do have a personality.

[Sematary]

You cant beat your kids no more without them threatening to call CPS on you.
Both parents have to work now, so children spend most of the day in school and childcare.
After working all day, parents don't have the energy to deal with kids, so they sit them in front the TV.
Young kids don't really understand the difference between reality and fiction, so there brains begin to think like the TV.
So far as they are concerned, Jersey Shore and 16 and pregnant is "normal" life.

I say blame the government. If they didn't keep 1/3 your wages, steal your savings through inflation, and regulate who can watch your kid..
Then maybe both parents wouldn't have to work just to scrape by, and they could actually raise their children properly.

I have raised seven children and more than one has threatened to call DHS when I disciplined them (I don't believe in spankings or anything like that but punishment needs to be meted out at times) and I told them to go ahead - I wouldn't be the one leaving. That put an end to THAT crap.

[Sematary]

So my two cents. I am down to the last of seven children - my adorable little 12 year old who is now starting to hit her new hormone stride and making my life miserable, just like the other 6 before her.
After reading the initial article it really seems that what the author is describing is a combination of several things (including poor government schools). It also seems that the cities are the worst areas. I believe alot of this is due to anonymity. With so many other children and people in an area, it makes it easier to do things that you wouldn't dare try in a small community because EVERYONE knows everyone or at least can find your parents if you get out of control. Not that bullying and such don't happen in the "country" but it seems to be less frequent and far less abusive than what I've seen in some of these videos.

I've noticed (and I blame this on the video game culture) that the girls have grown up. The boys haven't. Even my oldest son, at 26, is still living his life as if he were 17 and had no worries. And, really, he doesn't. Nor does his step brother. They both work. They both pay their bills. They both take responsibility for their lives - because I wouldn't just give them stuff on a silver platter. I made them earn it. So, even though I'm not too thrilled that neither one of them seems to have a life outside of work that doesn't involve "Battlefield", or some other useless gaming endeavor, at least they are responsible enough to hold down a job and take care of themselves. The girls (for whatever reason) don't seem to pick up this video gaming obsession as easily as the boys in our country and seem more likely to move onto adulthood and do what people have always done - raise a family, go to college, whatever.
I have to say - I'm glad I don't live in the cities because, even though I grew up in them (New York, Boston, Worcester), I hate them as places to live. Great to visit though. The above mentioned anonymity is one of the reasons. Another is that (unlike the country) teenagers get involved in gangs and other groups that are counterproductive to normal growth and the culture within those groups is what becomes "normal" as opposed to being taught how to be an adult.
Just my two cents, like I said.

[PaulConventionWV]

You realize we're in the same political camp, right? We're all here on a Ron Paul message board...

And PaulConventionWV, I've said this before, you're a really bright guy and I know your heart/mind are in the right place. I feel like we'd be friends in "real life". However, your lack of understanding of the natural world is really quite astounding. When you say things like "The key difference between animals and humans is awareness", and "Naturalism is not part of science," I can't help but shake my head.

Your naivete astounds me as well. It's funny how that works. I'm glad we could be friends, though. I think it is you who lacks understanding of the natural world. First of all, it's simply a fact that naturalism is not a scientific view. If I said it could never be a part of science, then I was wrong. It is simply not a scientific view to only accept naturalistic explanations of the world and the universe. It's a logical axiom and a self-evident truth that naturalism cannot be assumed with any reliability. If you find a computer in the wilderness, are you only going to accept naturalistic explanations for how it got there?

[PaulConventionWV]

You were doing good until you got to the bolded part. You are wrong. Animals do have individuality. Each one is unique. If you haven't noticed this, you haven't interacted that much with animals.

Did I say they weren't unique? Maybe I should have said they have no sense of individuality.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think he means they have no humanity or personality, no legal rights, or shouldn't have any.

Yes, that.