DwayneEMTP

I continue to be confused when we bring this back to "Anyone can be taught to shoot a gun." That is akin to saying, "Anyone can be taught to start an IV." But starting it is ridiculously easy when compared to putting it to use right? Those that have been in violent situations, and have approached them with intelligence instead of machisimo, know that they are terribly complex situations. People tend to look at violence as simply "He's shooting at me, so I'm going to shoot back at him." But if somebody is shooting, then most of the important decisions have been lost... This is one of those discussions that seem so obvious to me that I'm not sure where to begin, nor end arguing. I would rather allow them to fly planes "just because' then to carry a gun. And yeah, when I say 'them', I mean me as well...We don't allow many to RSI because they can't be trusted to work their way through the complexities of the intervention, how much more complex is the decision to take a life, when to take take it, etc? And then of course, and it pains me to say it, but there is all of the Lone Star stuff... Dwayne

I'm not sure what it is you don't see? Medicine = Analyzing a situation, sometimes under tense conditions and making rational logical decisions about the interventions you posses. Handling a gun, ditto. And yeah, I think it's a poor idea to give cops advanced medical interventions and expect them to be trustworthy if they've shown unable to handle their gun properly. You fail in one, you fail...period. We're not talking about tazers. If I can't trust you to RSI, as a profession, then no deadly force for you Lone Ranger. At least not profession wide. I’m guessing there’s no correlation between being shitting at mowing the lawn and handling a weapons either, but if you chop up my lawn, show that you can’t handle a simple task, then I’m certainly not going to give one 100 times more complex next time. And EMS is not short on stories showing that they are still unable to mow the lawn. Seems very simple to me. Show to me that you can't be trusted to follow a simple protocol or physiologic trail, when that is what you've been trained to do, and I won't trust you to make any other serious, life endangering decisions either. Easy. Ooops...just saw you post to Vent. Surely no one needs to explain to you that, like many skills, anyone can learn to shoot a gun. I had assumed that we were operation under the assumption that these people would be handling them in situations where a gun was needed, or much worse, where on 'might' be needed. If that assumption is true, then the mechanical operation of the gun is certainly way, way at the bottom of the priority list. Dwayne

We can't trust many on the ambulance to competently carry out simple medical interventions, but we're considering giving them the responsibility of possessing a gun? Do I really need to say any more than that? Dwayne

Yeah, as Spenac says, the commute can be kind of a bitch... I've not taken any of these instructor courses before. What's necessary to qualify? I mean, I'm confident, as long as I don't have to intubate, or start IVs or splint, or bandage, or package, or set a drip rate, or talk on the radio, or listen to lung sounds, or write anything, or touch anything goopy, or palp anything....I think I'm good.... :wink: Ok, serioulsy though, what's necessary? I'd love to add it if I could... Dwayne

Yeah, I hear you. We're definately on the same page here. Thanks for your thoughts. Dwayne

I think it was me that you believe may have spoken out of turn, so I’ll try and explain. Two things. First, Wendy was in her FI program at her job when we had this conversation. (I know I’m making a leap that it WAS me, as I can’t think of anyone that would describe me as wise) Some of the medics she worked with demanded that she get full vitals, IV, BGL, assessment and follow up vitals on all patients, regardless of the patients’ needs. They often have very short transport times and she was getting a little nuts because she couldn’t fulfill all of their requirements in the time allowed. I told her not to sweat it, just to simply jump through their silly hoops, as that wasn’t medicine, it was a bullshit kind of hazing. She was being forced to produce a bunch of skills, while still learning those skills, without the necessary time to do so, nor allowed to follow a logical path to choose the interventions she felt were prudent. And I certainly don’t advocate sitting in front of grandma’s house if I’m five minutes from the hospital, I advocate sitting IN grandma’s house until I’ve improved her condition if I’m able to do so. The distance to the hospital makes no difference to me. Breathing problems? I’ve ‘done harm’ if I have fire or my crew move her, jostle her around, make her anxious, before improving her condition. Cardiac? Ditto. Fall with broken limbs/hip? Line, O2, pain management, proper stabilization, before even considering movement to the ambulance. Isn’t that why we did all the silly book learnin’? I’m curious, with the exception of significant trauma, why the relative closeness to the hospital matters? How would that change your treatment? The only times I’ve ever just picked up an ran was on major trauma, twice, both less than a block from the ER doors. All other major traumas I moved my ass you can be sure, as I'm a believer in the Platinum 10, but on those two I simply strapped them to a board, monitored the airway and ran to the ER. I can’t think of a single time that I’ve moved a medical patient before making every realistic (read 'logical based on likelihood of short term success') effort to improve their condition. Because moving them, in my limited experience, is sure as hell going to retard it. I like to imagine that the ‘medic’ in my dearly earned title is short for medicine. Dwayne

I think part of the issue arises from those that can't believe ak when he says he can't fathom hitting his children. I can understand that, it doesn't seem reasonable..until you've spent time with him. Hopefully most know I’m not a hero worshiper, it’s not my way to stand up for someone based on personal feelings as opposed to doing my best to ‘be real’, but still, take what follows for what it’s worth to you. I believe I’m as strong or stronger in behavioral principals than the average layman, but then I spent a couple of days with ak and his family. His children are all smart and fun, respectful, and polite. But what struck me most, and I mean this with the utmost sincerity, is that they always looked me in the face when talking. They had no fear of me, as an adult, nor as a stranger. They had no issues drawing boundaries between adult interactions and adult/children interactions, meaning they didn’t interrupt or demand attention, but when it was appropriate they loved being part of the attention. I spent HOURS with his kids on my lap, talking, playing tic tac toe (grrrrr) and most of that time trying to figure out how I could send Dylan to live with them. They seemed to have every single tool necessary to control their own destiny when they become adults, and I admire that terribly. But what’s most important is that he has a plan for raising his kids. When they go into a restaurant the first thing he does in his head, or at least I believe so, is decide “What issues might arise, and what will I do to correct them?” I can’t remember it being necessary, but what I do remember is that there were kids spanked in the same restaurant that day, with the main difference, it seemed to me, was that he watched and listened to his kids, he knew when they spoke, when they spilled, when they got bored, each of them, all the time. The kids that were spanked or swatted ‘seemed’ to be attached to parents that didn’t see them until they needed discipline. It was as if the parents were burdened with their kids and their kids’ behavior was separate from theirs. With ak there was family behavior. He had failed if he’s allowed his children into situations where they didn’t know how to behave, and he chooses not to punish them for his failure. They are a family, proud or ashamed together, never allowing himself to be seprate of his kids’ behavior by blaming it on them. That is awesome to me. But it takes a lot of work, a lot of attention. I once watched a Dr. try and dress him down in Kandahar. Within 10 minutes I simply wanted to drag the doc outside and beat the shit out of him, but without ever raising his voice, or being disrespectful ak resolved the issues, as best that I believe they could be resolved, with the doc appearing an overbearing idiot, as he was. He didn’t need to get mad, as he doesn’t allow lazy tools like that when it can be helped. He chooses smarter tools, tools that will lead to positive results whenever possible. Ask him why he refused to hit his kids and he’ll tell you, SPECIFICALLY. Ask him what he’ll do instead and he’ll do likewise, with multiple options. This isn’t about who’s wrong or right. This is about logic, intelligence, justifying your argument. Saying that a lack of spanking doesn’t work “because the newspaper says so” or that spanking does work “because I’ve seen it” just doesn’t hold water. Why is that so hard to understand? Mobey as well I applaud. Because he chooses not to spank? Not at all. Because he's chosen to use logical, intelligent, proven tools that require him to work 50 times harder to raise his kids than the majority of the spanking crowd I’ve been exposed to. When he tells his stories about how he’s adjusted his kids’ behavior, I don’t have to wonder for a second if he’s being honest or not, simply because the SCIENCE says that the situation should have played out exactly as he described it. For me, it’s that simple. Most of my dislike for spanking came from animal training. People would justify hitting their dogs/horses, whatever, with the defense of "See, he stopped and went and lay down!" I'd I'd ask, "stopped what EXACTLY?" and they'd say, "Stopped (whatever)" And then I'd tell them, "You're right, he's stopped doing (whatever), but he's also stopped doing EVERYTHING else. He's stopped exploring, stopped being happy, stopped being curious, stopped wanting to please, stopped having the confidence that you will allow him to make mistakes in order to learn....Good for you." If you have an educated, intelligent plan that incorporates spanking..good for you! I have no issues with it as long as fear is never a part of that plan, but how many have you actually seen that do? And how many have you actually seen that simply do it because it's easy? C'mon! Those of you that can spot an unspanked child at 100 yards should be able to answer this with no problem. That is my issue, not the tool, but the ignorance in it's application. Dwayne

Holy crap, how do you decide? I've created cherished memories while stoned and naked to nearly every album mentioned so far... I'm going to have to go with bands as I don't know the album names.... Some important ones, also while stoned and naked, 38 Special, Meatloaf, and c'mon...just about anything by America or Bread... Yeah? I'm getting old...so sue me. Dwayne Dwayne

It sounds like you're saying there is a shortage of basics to staff ambulances, and that allowing drivers would fill those slots, creating jobs without eliminating any, and be good for all? Maybe this is a Canadian issue, as in the U.S. there are more basics than trees. Maybe we could ship you some of ours? :wink: Dwayne

I would read the matterial as well before lectures. I'd read a paragraph, and then reread it while highlighting what I felt the most relevant points were. After I'd finish a chapter I would go through and make notes from the highlighted text, using my own words of course. Then I'd condense those notes to be as very specific as possible. During the lectures, (I NEVER took, nor take primary notes during college lectures as my pea brain finds it impossible to try and think around the corners of what's being discussed and summarize if for my notes at the same time), I'd make additions or corrections to the notes I had previously taken and later condense it again, the things I felt necessary, onto flashcards for regular study. For me, condensing the material is vital. What can stay and what can go? Why? Which parts are important, but I'll remember when put into the context of the parts I transcribe? I feel that I have a very good grasp of the information at the end of the process, though it certainly isn't for the weak of heart. I did come to enjoy the process though, as it often feels mindless, but even I seemed to pick up things as I rewrote them, if I was paying attention or not. I studied a minimum of 5 hours/day, every day of the week throughout college, whether school was in or not. I don't think there is any way to eliminate of the need for some brute force studying, at least I couldn't find it...but it only lasts for a while, you need to remember that. And also for me, group study is the best. The problem though is that if you want a study group, you need to be prepared to organize it, prepare all of the material, and eliminate anyone that isn't as motivated as you...it can become an additional job that you might not need right now. Good luck! Dwayne

Spenac, I know we keep ignoring your "Fair, consistent discipline is the answer" responses, as they are obviously logical and not nearly radical enough to attack. ;-) I do agree with you, as far as it goes, it's the system that ensures the fairness and consistency that is at issue. No one can be consitent 'by feel' or simply by trying. Consistency requires a logical, trackable plan to prevent you from simply 'feeling' fair and consistent. A system without a benchmark is doomed to fail. But I love the spirit of your posts. Dwayne

I wasn't disagreeing that this is evidence that this child is being raised poorly, but that you seem to extrapolate that to also mean the the quiet children are quite because their parents have spanked them. One doesn't really supply evidence to the other. See what I mean? And if that is your Primary form of motivation it is destined to fail. As part of an intelligent behavoral/motivational plan? Works ok, as does very minor corporal punishment. As a primary means of motivation, major fail. And yes, I can prove it. ;-) Dwayne

Again, amongst this mostly educated crowd, I continue to be surprised that you use that to believe that all of the children you didn't hear were raised differently. As well, other than the news, I see almost no evidence that though the term “hands off kids” is prevalent, that the practice is too. I know many people with children, am very active in my son’s school, yet know of perhaps 5% of the parents that would claim to ‘never’ spank their kids (observed only as I’ve not asked them all), and have never heard that particular term used by any of them. Dust, I do believe that you and I have started to argue at cross purposes. I have long ago stopped arguing that 'my' way of raising children was correct and have simply been arguing that I don't believe any one person, or even large group of people can observe snapshots of a tiny group of a massive population and realistically draw accurate conclusions as to the reasons for any given set of behaviors. The data involved is so massive, the interactions that effect each child so unbelievably huge, that it's been difficult for me to believe that you're comfortable stating that you've taken all of that into account, in your head, without the aid of organized analysis and withdrawn data accurate enough to base the raising of children on. I think MAST pants is an excellent example. I'm going to pull this out of my rear, but it seems to me that they were born from military trauma. They were used and propagated based on inaccurate data that 'seemed' to be right and accurate. When science reared its ugly head and took a look at them they very soon fell out of favor. They collected data for MAST trousers the same way, it seems to me, that you're collecting data for child rearing practices, "it appeared so obviously true that all of that silly science just wasn't necessary." We have a body of behavioral evidence that's been well vetted, (I'm still confused why you continue to refer to it as "some paper"), so I'm unclear why we choose, in this argument, not to acknowledge it. I have no such confusion in the general population, as thinking is much more difficult than spanking, but when dealing with you I'm unable to see why you continue to attempt to denigrate the most soundly proved body of science next to, say, physics? Again, my argument is against the "I don't need science to tell me what I can see with my own eyes" mentality. The same mentality that would leave us with a flat world orbited by the sun, not for or against the way one chooses to raise their kids. For me, that argument is pointless until we define to some extent what is allowed as valid, logical argument. Most of this thread would have been laughed out of an 8th grade debate class. Though many wouldn't, I hope that you'll see respect presented by my effort to put forth me best arguments instead of the opposite being true. Though I know I can (possibly) become overly aggressive sometimes, no disrespect was intended to you at any point. Dwayne

Edit: Evidently I messed up while quoting. This was meant to be in responst to Lone Star's claim that he's provided 'statistical data' to support his contentions. Statistics, science of collecting and classifying a group of facts according to their relative number and determining certain values that represent characteristics of the group. The most familiar statistical measure is the arithmetic mean mean, in statistics, a type of average . The arithmetic mean of a group of numbers is found by dividing their sum by the number of members in the group; e.g., the sum of the seven numbers 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 19 is 70 so their mean is 70 divided by 7, or 10. ..... Click the link for more information. , which is an average value for a group of numerical observations. A second important statistic or statistical measure is the standard deviation, which is a measure of how much the individual observations are scattered about the mean. The chi-square test is a method of determining the odds for or against a given deviation from expected statistical distribution. Other statistics indicate other characteristics of the group of observations. In addition to the problem of computing certain statistics for a particular group of observations, there is the problem of sampling. This is an attempt to determine for what larger group (called the population) of individuals or characteristics the statistics for this particular group (called the sample) would be a representative figure and how representative a figure it would be for a given larger group. This second problem of sampling can be solved only by resorting to the theory of probability probability, in mathematics, assignment of a number as a measure of the "chance" that a given event will occur. There are certain important restrictions on such a probability measure. ..... Click the link for more information. and higher mathematics. In most applications of statistics to scientific and social research, insurance, and finance, the statistician is interested not only in the characteristics of the sample but also in those of some much larger population. Consequently, the theory of sampling is the most important part of statistical theory. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Statistical+data A little help for you regarding the term "statistical data." When you continue to use terms well above your education level, and claim to have "proved" points you haven't even justified as viable theory yet, you simply make yourself look more silly. There is nothing scientific about pulling a bunch of shit out of the tabloids, or Googling "school shootings" and posting all that you find. If you want to use science, you need to do the work of science. There are no realistic short cuts short of promoting a logical cause/effect chain that will at least make one go "Hmmmmm?" According to your 'theory', the violence in early New York? If immigrant parents had had some balls all would have been well. Gangs in the inner cities? Simply the effect of 'hands off parenting.' The Taliban? Certainly there must be a Dr. Spock book in every home. Come on Lone Star, get real. Dwayne

Statistics, science of collecting and classifying a group of facts according to their relative number and determining certain values that represent characteristics of the group. The most familiar statistical measure is the arithmetic mean mean, in statistics, a type of average . The arithmetic mean of a group of numbers is found by dividing their sum by the number of members in the group; e.g., the sum of the seven numbers 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, and 19 is 70 so their mean is 70 divided by 7, or 10. ..... Click the link for more information. , which is an average value for a group of numerical observations. A second important statistic or statistical measure is the standard deviation, which is a measure of how much the individual observations are scattered about the mean. The chi-square test is a method of determining the odds for or against a given deviation from expected statistical distribution. Other statistics indicate other characteristics of the group of observations. In addition to the problem of computing certain statistics for a particular group of observations, there is the problem of sampling. This is an attempt to determine for what larger group (called the population) of individuals or characteristics the statistics for this particular group (called the sample) would be a representative figure and how representative a figure it would be for a given larger group. This second problem of sampling can be solved only by resorting to the theory of probability probability, in mathematics, assignment of a number as a measure of the "chance" that a given event will occur. There are certain important restrictions on such a probability measure. ..... Click the link for more information. and higher mathematics. In most applications of statistics to scientific and social research, insurance, and finance, the statistician is interested not only in the characteristics of the sample but also in those of some much larger population. Consequently, the theory of sampling is the most important part of statistical theory. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Statistical+data A little help for you regarding the term "statistical data." When you continue to use terms well above your education level, and claim to have "proved" points you haven't even justified as viable theory yet, you simply make yourself look more silly. There is nothing scientific about pulling a bunch of shit out of the tabloids, or Googling "school shootings" and posting all that you find. If you want to use science, you need to do the work of science. There are no realistic short cuts short of promoting a logical cause/effect chain that will at least make one go "Hmmmmm?" According to your 'theory', the violence in early New York? If immigrant parents had had some balls all would have been well. Gangs in the inner cities? Simply the effect of 'hands off parenting.' The Taliban? Certainly there must be a Dr. Spock book in every home. Come on Lone Star, get real. Dwayne Dwayne

As I believe of yours as well. I'll explain the best that I can below out of respect for your response. You and I have had dozens of hours of conversations, many of them very personal in nature, yet you've never mentioned your children to me, nor your exhaustive experience gained during the full time raising of someone else's children. This caused me to assume that these children hadn't existed. My apologies if you felt this information to personal perhaps to share with me and I drew incorrect conclusions. But if not, then I question the exhaustiveness of your experience as part of the weight of my argument. But this is where I most feel that you continue to purposely push the conversation off into bullshit. If your educational experience is nearly as vast as you've previously claimed, particularly where psychology is concerned, and you've claimed in the past to be very familiar with the theories I've posed, then you know very well that they have been well tested and attacked from every corner of science for well over a century. Not eggheads, but well respected scientists. Not a few papers, but thousands at the least. Most published in respected scientific journals for scientific scrutiny. Nonsense. That is the very basis of pseudoscience. The very reason people still fear ghosts and UFOs. They believe their eyes and their feelings, which, and I'm comfortable any birthday party magician can validate this for you, has been proved for centuries to lead us astray. There was a time where you were the strongest, wisest advocate of verifiable medicine, of the advancement of EMS through the proved scientific advancement of medicine as the cornerstone of intelligent practice. But suddenly you'd like us to believe that you're right simply because you say it's so. Doesn't wash. It's never been how we've worked things out since I've been a member here, and I'll do what tiny bit I can to disallow it from becoming the new standard. I certainly have not enjoyed it, and have respect for what you have done. In fact, if you don't look at that statement very closely then it almost seems relevant to this conversation, but it isn't. Unless you were a pediatric nurse that lived 24/7 with the family of the child you cared for, without interfering with that environment, then this is simply another attempt to cloud the issue with pretend evidence. Please show me if I've misunderstood this in some way. I don't have time to reread the thread, but I'm fairly confident that I've not made a single statement regarding how I've raised my son. My memory isn't what it used to be though, so I may be wrong. My entire argument has been based on doing what is shown to be successful, what is proved to be successful. Dylan's autism makes me unable to spank him. The last time I did so, perhaps 8 years ago, I couldn't get near him if he made a mistake of any kind. And when he finally understood I wouldn't spank him any more and stopped running away, he would simply punch himself, for I'd taught him that violence is the proper response to errors. Does that mean I hate spanking? I've said over and over that I don't, yet you still claim that I do, that I'm a follower of a "few eggheads", that is why I believe you are being disingenuous. You are way to smart not to be able to see the points, and argue them at the college level, yet you continue to make arguments I expect to see in the tabloids. That makes it impossible for me to believe that you are committed to a progressive debate leading to our best possible answer. Perhaps not yours, nor mine, but better options than what we started with. Instead it appears to me that you’re simply muddying the water for your own purposes. I would love to share their success. But this seems to only work in Texas, as my experiences have been completely different from yours and Lone Star's. I have simply asked for evidence that you're not bullshitting yourself, if not with what you see, but the reasons that you see it. Unfortunately you seem to have come to a point where you're so smart you have no further need for proof, no need for reproducible, unbiased views of something that we seem to agree, is the most important job in the world. At no point have I claimed that spanking doesn't work, that it should be banned, that it has no place. I've simply asked for one single piece of scientific data to show that it does. That should be the easiest thing in the world as it's enjoyed unbridled success since the beginning of time, right? Good for you. I'm not asking you to change a thing you've done, or may do in the future. I'm simply asking that you stop pretending to participate in this conversation using pseudoscience at the high school level as valid evidence. I'm a much better person today because you refused to accept my bullshit when I didn't know any better. This is simply my attempt to return the favor. Dwayne

I have to leave you on your own here Wendy. Dust and LS have decided that 'seems like' is the new science, and I don't know how to have that argument. LS has decided that every headline has come to represent 'every' child in todays society, despite the overwhelming evidence that that vast majoritiy of kids today are doing just fine, and I don't know how to have that argument either. This conversation is no longer about logic or intelligence. It's about those that want to wallow is feel good, illogical, immediate gratification as opposed to science base progress bullshit. I stopped a while back even trying to defend my opinion and argued that we need to persue the science and even that is opposed. Dust claims that somehow being a peds nurse gives him some type of extra insight into parenting skills. He claims that evidence isn't needed to support his views anymore as history has shown his views to be correct, because they 'seem' to be. I would rather believe that I've been wrong about the sky being blue than to believe that Dust were capable of making such a silly argument. I have to admit that at some point I've at least partially, if not completely gone off into the ditch, because I'm shocked by the new "I need prove nothing" attitude here. It just makes no sense to me. Either something terrible has changed, or I've been wrong all along...I just can't figure it out. Either way, I choose not to play any more. Dwayne

Once again you need to thank God that there is no corporal punishment for stupidity...We'd have beat you to death. Dwayne

To imply that someone’s children are going to be spoiled and week simply because they refuse to use archaic, provably idiotic parenting methods is absurd. And what is this new trend of insulting people’s kids? It’s a chicken shit way to argue and I’m surprised to see it come from you Dust. You're only correct if you assume that time outs are used as punishment, but most often, when used properly, they are not. You take a child from a situation where they have lost control, allow them to regain control so that they can figure out how to get what they want within acceptable boundaries, and then you release them. Every minute spent being punished beyond the time where 'enlightenment' has been reached is lazy and destructive. Again, we continue to look for ways to punish when what children need are boundaries. Children don’t need to be beaten into boundaries, they constantly beg for them! They can “most often” be simply highlighted without a negative use of force, and can be set without violence or acute punishments, but it requires thinking, which is why punishment is still so popular. I’m thinking Texas must be run over with shitty kids, as it seems mostly the Texans that think more severe punishments are not only productive, but desirable over methods proven superior. If I leave when the bear is lost, ignoring the tantrum that may follow, I have not punished, I have simply allowed my child his God given right to be responsible for his own behavior. When the tantrum produces no reaction from me so THE SCIENCE says that it is much less likely to be repeated in the future, an will then soon become extinct. If I then take him home and punish him for throwing the bear I've not taught him anything more about his behavior, but have taught him that I am an unfair bully. Call this "feel good' parenting if you like, but it's the only theory that's been proved to be productive in consistently changing behavior without adding many additional unforeseen behaviors to boot. Punishment works, but mostly because it reinforces the punisher. It's popular, makes you feel powerful, plus you're lazy (obviously not you Dust) peers also stand up and cheer your superior backbone. Raising children is like medicine, a science and an art. Why so many that practice medicine are more willing to study medicine than they are intelligent ways to raise their children is a mystery to me. If many of you treated your patients the same way you claim to raise your children you'd need nothing more than some bandages, splints and an O2 tank. I mean obviously if your patient is having trouble breathing you should just give them Os, if they are bleeding you should simply plug the hole, right? Yeah, your kids are more complicated than that too.... Dwayne Edit: The choices in the poll are a great example of the problems faced when discussing this issue. Each one of those choices can be easily found in the headlines of any daily rag (text or digital), but you won't find any of those options, as a stand alone option, in a college behavioral psychology textbook. Dwayne

This is the most inspiring thing I've heard you say in a along time. It seems obvious to me that the "no one loses" philosophy isn't "the" answer, but at least it's different from the obviously failed tools from the past. When something doesn't work, you have to change it, even if it's to take a shot in the dark and hope for new data. I think that's what's happened here. The theory was that if we didn't damage children's self esteem that they would grow up stronger and more confident, yet that doesn't appear to be the complete answer, so we now see the pendulum swinging back towards the middle of the spectrum. We explored the extreme right, and it didn't work as well as we'd like, so we swung all the way to the left and are finding that that isn't the answer either, as anything radical rarely is, so now we are swinging back towards the middle. The mistake I believe I see is that when the radical left isn't what we wanted people immediately want to go back to what they know, which is the failed tools from the past, because we're comfortable with what we know. I don't believe we have the right any longer to go to what is comfortable, we have to move towards what works, and we're making headway, it just takes time. I do have go laugh a little bit when you talk about the anti authority, anti conformity of this generation. I believe the 50's gave us rock and roll, the 60's the flower children and drug culture; I lived on a Hell's Angels commune for nearly three years in the 70's. At what point has this generation been more radical than those? I don't see it. Besides, there is a lot of good that came from those 'losers.' Things are different now. Not worse, and perhaps a little better, as we move to use our brain instead of a stick now when things go wrong. The stick has its place, but it's rare. CTXMedic, you say that we would have to build fewer prisons if people stopped raising kids that needed to be placed there. But until then, let's build more prisons. How's that working for you? At an alarming rate people are raising kids that end up in prison, and very often using the exact tactics you're so fond of. So how long before you stop screaming for 'people to do right' and accept that that isn't going to happen and go to plan B? The system we have now sucks...but it sucks less than the system we had before. And for now I'm going to get behind the ‘sucks less’ options every time whenever anyone tries to push for going back to the 'proven to suck more' options. Dwayne

It’s not that my opinion is the only right one, as you can see that my opinion is not well formed, it’s just that the opposing argument has been proved wrong for so long that it makes me crazy. It's such an ignorant opinion for a complex issue and anyone spending even an hour or two looking into it would see so. And yeah, I got pretty pissed about the disrespect for CBEMT's children. That's just utter weak, ignorant cowardice. It's no sin that the game turned out how it did, what's a sin is that there are so many here that believe it's a good thing for both teams involved. I don't get that... Learning to raise undamaged children is an evolution. Things need to be tried, tested, judged objectively and then either improved on or discarded, yet each time a thread like this comes up, most often started by Lonestar, there is a never ending cacophony of "beat them more and they will be better!" Tried it folks. It didn't work then, and it won't work now, so to continue to call for a return of the same failed measures, I find, idiotic. It’s like screaming to build more prisons instead of learning how to raise people that don’t end up there. To me, that just seems obviously, blatantly stupid. Sometimes I can’t see how anyone smart enough to do medicine can’t see it as well. I don’t pretend to have the answers, I’m just simply arguing against continuing to use the same failed tools from the past. And I'm not going anywhere. I've been asked by many in the last few months to leave, but that's not likely to happen any time soon. But there is certainly here, as everywhere, a cost/benefit analysis and threads like this tilt the scale so far to the cost side that it does make one wonder where our time might be better spent. I'm grateful for most all of your thoughts, and the time you dedicate to sharing them, but I've found that my bullshit tolerance is just too friggin low for some things. Dwayne

Man, I was speaking to one of the most respected members on this board the other day who said, "The posts have become so macho and ignorant that I'm not sure I even want to post any more. I'm not sure the board’s even savable." I argued then, but now I have to agree that he's probably right. The ‘Winners are winners and losers need to suck it up’ attitude is truly just depressing. It’s so narrow minded and short sighted that I’m not sure what could change such simple minds. It shows a complete lack of psychological education, a call back to the “good ol’ boy” just ‘beat em enough and they’ll turn out ok’ crap. Embarrassing. And to wish failure on a person's children? That stoops to a whole new level of idiocy and cowardice. CTXMedic, I’ve often liked many of your posts, but I can’t imagine what would cause me to ever again take seriously the thoughts of someone so soulless as to curse another’s children because of an argument. What a pussy. When schools pitch the need for their sports programs is that what they say? “Because we win!” “Why should we give you this money we ask”, and they reply something to the effect of "Because it builds strength, pride, companionship, and good sportsmanship." In other words it builds character. I'm blessed to know many people of character, yet not a single one that wouldn't have played the towel boy before allowing this to happen. To whoever said they should pick a different league? Obviously you're talking out of your ass when you talk about playing school sports, because if you had played then you'd know that no one chooses their league. It's based on school population as well as availability. Reaper, don't tell me not to bring the military into this. You pulled the "generation of pansies" card brother. If you don't like the consequences of the things you say, simply don't make stupid generalizations. The military didn't turn a few generations of "I run to mommy if I feel uncomfortable" kids into soldiers willing to die for their country in a few short weeks. There are losers in the "feel good" generation, but there are also amazing athletes, captains of new industry, brilliant minds dedicated to healing and ending suffering. All from the "feel good" generations. Just because your limited minds can see no benefit except to chart wins vs losses doesn't mean that history isn't proving that you’re you're full of shit. It obviously is. No one benefitted from the mentioned game. The winners beat up on a team that has about 15 people to draw talent from. No pride there. The school that got hammered showed everyone a terrible lesson by asking for apologies. Shame on them. There were a bunch of lessons to be learned here but it seems both sides missed them all. Well…there you have it. Perhaps this post will get me banned and I won’t have to worry about it any more… Have a great day all… Dwayne