RedWolf
Deity
How about doing "scut work" for a large corporation so that they can provide services for their employees without actually PAYING for labour?
Mandatory Community Serice
- Thread starter RedWolf
- Start date
How about doing "scut work" for a large corporation so that they can provide services for their employees without actually PAYING for labour?
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Here is where we fundamentally disagree. Helping the community is just as much a learning exercise as knowing the three times table, in my opinion. I see no difference between forcing a child to do one for their benefit and forcing a child to do the other for their benefit, except maybe the former helps the community as well. Getting a child to clean up graffiti shows them the damage done to the community by vandals and more importantly the effort needed to repair that damage. A useful lesson for any child. Serving soup to the homeless will show them not only how the poorest of the poor live and survive but that the plight of these people does matter to others. Another useful lesson to learn. I could go on and on but no doubt you wish that I don't so I won't. I will just say that academic education is very important but so-called "life" education should never been ignored in favour of it. And I do not lack a knowledge of life, I simply do not believe that forcing children to do the right thing is wrong. A child does have human rights but they are not an adult and therefore do not have adult rights such as voting. A child is forced to do a great many things, eat vegetables being perhaps the most hideous, but they are all done in their best interests. Forcing a child to do a service to the community is in their best interests.
Again, I disagree. Socialism and capitalism are two extremes, there is a whole stretch of open space between them called the middle ground.
You know what's funny....if there are die-hard capitalists that say "Welfare and Social Security suck, you get by on your own!" are so willing to have students doing *gasp* socialist activities such as painting a not-so-well funded school, handing out soup to the homeless, or other things such as that since it'll give the kids a backbone in the real world of die-hard capitalism. Just interesting...
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Another genius example of the elite deciding what is best for everyone.
Mandatory community service is good for punishment, but nothing else.
Mandatory community service is good for punishment, but nothing else.
Would "Press Ganged" be better.
The Charities got what they wanted, in the short term
and it is short term thinking.
I got kids doing this, It seems they and their friends are developing an abiding hatred of charities, I think in the
long run the 40 hours is ALL that they will EVER get out
of these people. In 5 years when the charities come hat in hand
they'll show them the door for the next 70 years.
BTW, If they screw up and bust expense equipment, they
won't be losin' any sleep over it
Sims2789
Fool me once...
my state already has mandatory community service to graduate Middle School(20 hours) and High School(i think 40 hours). its a pain in the butt, and i don't like it. but it did help cement the relationship between me and my first girlfriend(i went to communtiy service only to be with her)
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Originally posted by RedWolf
Yeah yeah..
I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong.... and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
*In Amon Goeth voice* I pardon you.
One cannot resist the sight of such a nice wolfy. Go and chase the children now! Fetch! 
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Educating the ignorant.
No, it does not teach that. I admit it would teach some kids that justice is not universal and perfect but I think that is lesson everyone learns at some point in their life. I believe it would teach kids that they should be proud of their community and that to disrespect it and other people's property is wrong.
By elite do you mean those elected by the people? Damn them for trying to make the world a better place. Don't they know that's not their job.
Painting a not-so-well funded school is not a socialist activity. Nationalising the steel industry, on the other hand, is a socialist activity. Forcing free adults to do something against their will is socialist. However as I have said before and I will say again children are not adults and do not have the same rights. We do not allow them to vote. We do not allow them to buy cigarettes, to gamble, to drink alcohol, to drive, to watch certain movies, and so on. We force them to learn mathematics, english, science, foreign languages, geography, etc. We force them to play sports and engage in physical activity. Why shouldn't we force them to do their bit for the community. Why is forcing a child to play rugby (or a whatever sport they happen to play where you are) on a freezing cold day okay but forcing a child to make their community a nicer play to live wrong? I could understand if you do not think community service would do these children any good and you argued against its merit and effectiveness or maybe even cost. However I do not understand those who oppose it because of its forced element. It seems incredibily hypocritical to me. I invite someone to prove me wrong or at least make me understand their case.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
I think we also fundamentally disagree about people's rights.
Here I to disagree alot, in fact. While the three times table (whatever that is) can probably be learned, altruism can't.
Forcing someone to help someone else doesn't teach him to help others, it might even teach him that people have to be forced to help.
It may help the community (it should as long as properly done) but there is obviously a big difference. In a society that radically puts the individual before the community (aka Capitalism) there is a huge difference between caring about yourself and caring about others, no matter if forced or not.
Such arch-Socialist ideas as helping others don't fit in.
In Socialism, on the other hand, those people should be provided for by the state, so that there's no justification for it as well. And as you rightfully mentioned the two are extremes, if it doesn't fit in at all in both it makes no sense to fit into a hybrid system.
Already adressed by others.
Sounds nice, but is blatantly unrealistic. If that would work we would all happily live in Communism. The natural reaction is to be p*ssed off that you have to clean up what others did.
Yeah, that it matters to them so much that they have to force people to help them...
Not correct.
Well, first of all it is not a decision between those two. The question is whether what you call "life education" should be done at all, or rather if it should involve being forced to work as whatever someone else regards as worthy.
And that is the main problem. There is no valid reason for saying that it would actually teach them anything positive. (see above)
But even then there would still be the question if it is right to force them.
So:
I'm not that sure about that, particularly because those "children" are already quite close to adults (in age) and in my view already far too old to be taught basic values (such as helping others).
While the one above is basically a matter of values, this one is a more objective issue. You haven't really given any concrete reason for why it would be in their interests. I can see that it can be in the government's interest, but I don't see it in the children's.
But hey, there was another post!
Depends entirely on who does it. If someone in no way connected to the school does it for free just to provide the people there with a well-painted school that is Socialist (or in a Socialist spirit).
Yes, as are subsidies for the said industry.
No, that's authoritarian. Socialism would be people working for each other because they think it's right.
Well sure, but not being forced to work is one everyone has (or should have). Like not being harmed, not being discriminated against based on heritage etc..
You basically says it's okay to take away alot of the (supposedly) positive aspects of being an adult for children (like voting, driving and so on) but on the other hand you don't just want them to take the negative aspects (having to work for example) but even without the positive point of being able to decide yourself on what to work (theoretically).
Yeah, I don't agree with that idea...
Because the second is our (the adult's) responsibility. If we screw up the community that is our problem and we have to see how (if at all) to solve it. Using our children's forced labour to make up for our own incapabilities is in my view a completely wrong idea.
As you can see I oppose it for both reasons.
But on the other hand only this second aspect could be a valid reason for it in my opinion. If it would really be to their benefit we might argue if they should be forced to their luck. As you can see I don't think it is to their benefit.
The other aspect, the one of the work being beneficial to the community, is, as said above, not a valid reason in my view.
RedWolf
Deity
Which you get paid for I assume. Doesn't count I'm afraid as community service.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I don't get paid for anything actually. I'm a tax dodger, I mean student.
Who said anything about altruism? If you help make your community a better place to live you get a better place to live in. Also the three times table is (imagine Barney the dinosaur's voice) three times three is nine, three times four is twelve, three times five is...well, you get the idea.
But won't you equally be as likely to be pissed off at those who did it in the first place and not only make it less likely you will do it but also more likely that you would stop someone else from doing it. It's likely that I used too many likelys in that sentence.
We force people to pay taxes to help the less fortunate.
The day someone is too old to be taught anything is the day they're dead.
In the socialist spirit? What the hell does that mean? If someone paints a school for free then they are doing a nice thing. That is all. Socialism does not enter into it in any shape or form.
Socialism is taking rich people's money to give to poor people by force (i.e. taxation).
But children are forced to work. We call it education but I'm sure most of them would call it work.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Questionable. I personally, as someone without children, don't care about the schools being painted or not on a personal level. The place I live in doesn't change through it, I don't live in schools.
Actually I don't. "Barney the dinosaur" is a mystery to me.
No.
I might even regard it as not bad myself. If people want those things to be cleaned off, they better do it themselves.
If they want to prevent it from happening, fine, I don't do it myself, I simply don't give a damn on it.
The whole point is about those (the majority) who won't do it anyway.
Those who do it will be even more likely to do it because of the fun inherent in the thought of some of the "good" pupils having to clean it up later.
Sure. The first thing they gonna do is forming militias to fight it.
It's far more likely they start doing it themselves. If they going to have to clean it up anyway they can at least participate in the fun part.
3/43 is an acceptable ratio.
So? Do they like it? Do they learn from it?
Maybe when it comes to being taught "anything", but not when it comes to basic values, which is what I said.
Taxation per se is something different than what you described in that sentence.
They are forced to be educated, not to work. Some people calling it something different doesn't change the facts. If they call football soccer it is still football. Unless it is Women's Soccer.
RedWolf
Deity
Yes but i already don't do those things - I don't litter, destroy public property etc etc. Never have - never will - it's caled being taught right from wrong and it didn't require me to work for "free".
In fact I have a personal policy against picking up litter from the ground. I have never and will never under ANY circumstances pick up garbage from the streets/public areas. Why? Because I have never and will never under any circumstances put it there. EVER. I look around and see the filth that people throw all over the place - candy wrappers, pop cans etc and realize that I can't "fix it" by myself when so many people just don't give a damn. All I can do is control my OWN actions. As for everybody else - we'll get the planet we deserve so why fight a losing battle?
Whiskey Priest
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2001
- Messages
- 297
I don't see how this will make kids more civic minded. Thats like saying working at mcdonalds will make them more interested in food service and the business world. Bull. Most will grudgingly do the work and forget about it. besides if you were a homeless guy would you really want to see some ghetto fabulous rich miserable punk handing you soup?
"Take yo soup G! I gotta get to the mall!
"Take yo soup G! I gotta get to the mall!
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
In my experience that is actually the case. For example working at McDonald's does a lot to teach a kid how to make food healthy (albeit not how to make healthy food).
Yeah, I totally agree. People generally are very picky about who will serve them free food, especially the homeless.
Dirty needle in children's play area.
Because losing is not an option.
Occasionally I quip.
You must encounter at least one publicly owned run-down building.
You don't know how lucky you are. You might think you do but you don't.
But you would if you were forced to clean it.
But they would have to clean it up too.
Then why do we force people to pay to help the less unfortunate?
Not in socialism. Redistribution of resources is inherently part of socialism and taxation is the most efficient means of doing this.
So every criminal over a certain age should be jailed for life? Because, as you said, people over a certain age cannot be taught basic values such as the concept of right and wrong. So if they were let out then they would definitely reoffend.
What is the difference? Education is there to help them. So would community service.
Similar threads
