Heartland

... the youth of today. They seem to have such a positivity, openness and straighforwardness that we never had. No awkward shuffling about loitering at the back. Even the miserable ones aren't backwards in coming forwards. Maybe it's the lack of World Wars, the abolition of hanging, cessation of National Service, the Beatles, Banana Splits, the Waltons, Abba, Noel Edmonds, You've Been Framed, Friends, Jackass or Tony Blair. Ecstasy or Alcopops. Who knows? I like to think my generation might have had a hand in it though. Anyways, I'm looking forward to spending New Year's Eve with my offspring's offspring. The future's bright.

Francis wrote:... the youth of today. They seem to have such a positivity, openness and straighforwardness that we never had.

I remember my dad telling this to me when I was "youth". Last time we had a little chat about this and he told me that his father told him the same when he was young, right after WW II.

The youth of today also lived yesterday I guess...

Guess there's always something on the move, between generations. People become more open or whatever, and their kiddos become it even more. Which seems like a very good thing indeed...

Ah, well, guess I'm the youth of today as well, right, so I shouldn't try to judge

So what sparked this Francis? Not that we're that bothered, the "youth of today" need all the support we can get - for every person such as yourself there are at least 3 or 4 going on about how much better it was in their day

And sometimes I find myself agreeing with them

We're certainly more open, no denying that.
And it seems we're becoming more liberal and imaginative, both of which are good things.

Perhaps the Banana Splits were of more use than we think.

Hello and good morning.. We're here to give you a chuckle, ooh.. We're giving you warning.. sit back and loosen your buckle..We're The Banana Splits yeah.. the Banana Splits, yeah..

/me wanders off to listen to them and smile

a positive post? my lord.. is it that time already?

Motz wrote:So what sparked this Francis?

Alcohol?

Motz wrote:the "youth of today" need all the support we can get

Precisely. And at my age I can no longer blame any injustices on older generations as it's mine that's pretty much running things now. So, just got to figure out how to enable our education system to engage the growing numbers for whom it seems to be an irrelevance and then how to solve the impending energy crisis without going nuclear and all will be well with the world.

Oh, and sort out my pension fund.

You're scaring me now, Francis.

I (all 22 years of me) get genuinely p!ssed off by "the yoof of today". My peers and those younger than me (with notable HLander exceptions, of course ).

It's been mch commented on of course, that once the flower children of the 60's grew up and brought up kids of their own, they did so in a much more liberal way. Or at least, their understanding of liberal as it translates to children you are in the care of (as a parent, teacher or any other authority figure), which seems to have meant less an open-minded worldview and more a plain lack of discipline, structure and boundaries. A breaking down of adult/child roles.

Children are not born into the world with a sense of morals, good behaviour and respect for others. It has to be learnt. All creatures are born completely selfish - and that is not a bad thing, on the contary... they want and need and demand energy and resources from those around them or they would not survive.
And growing up is a gradual process of testing how much you can get, what you can get away with, without someone in authority saying NO. If stamping your feet gets a kid what they want, who could blame them for thinking this is the way to go about things? A sense of morality they were only "taught" in tired "don't do that's" from adults before being given in to? If breaking into someone's house doesn't get them into a whole lot of trouble, why on earth should they be deterred from behaving like this?

The problem with a lot of kids and teenagers today is that nobody says to them - these are lines you cannot cross, this is unacceptable behaviour.

Don't get me wrong. I am and have always been a liberal. And I think if kids are being brought up to respect different cultures, races, ways of life etc. then that's great. That is rather at odds though, with being brought up to have no courtesy or consideration for those around you.

@ BBC2 - If Germaine Greer pops her clogs and you want to do another series of "Grumpy Old Women", you know where I am!

Personally I think that the lack of threat of nuclear armageddon has played its part in forming the yoof of today...

boudicca wrote:Children are not born into the world with a sense of morals, good behaviour and respect for others. It has to be learnt.

Still, it appears nature is winning over nurture in psychology. I once have been taught the influence of your education is of minor importance on who you'll become. Your peers and influences (of which your parents are but a small part) are only a part of you, and your DNA appears to tell a whole lot about you as well. I think they 'tested' it through identical twins who got split up, after a certain period you'd be more inclined to what your biological parents would do instead of what you had been taught, don't remember exactly though...

Still, I think lines have to be drawn for the youth, as many are incapable of getting what limits are themselves. Nature winning over nurture sounds like a very sad thing for liberals, I'm affraid

About the lack of a nuclear armageddon: How about these newish threats they come up with, like fear for the foreigner/islam and all that? But personally I still think you're right, the last couple of generations didn't experience any war (in the EU that is), and that has certainly had a certain impact on how we think...

boudicca wrote:The problem with a lot of kids and teenagers today is that nobody says to them - these are lines you cannot cross, this is unacceptable behaviour.

I agree. And as a child who's father was the one to say to his baby, "Sit down. It is unacceptable behavior for a five month old to crawl on tables in restaurants and it will not be tolerated," to which I immediately obeyed, I can say that a lot of kids don't have that and a lot of kids, although good at heart, just don't know what's decent behavior. Not decent as in "socially smiled upon," but decent as in good person stuff.

And I'm not too liberal to say that I think religion does have it's positive functions. Yeah, opiate for the masses, blah blah blah, but from my (limited) experience, the right (not necessarily strong) religious foundation can shape a kid in a good way, so things things aren't so dependent on the parents.

I don't think you can generalize. And I don't think you can name a formula for all child rearing (sorry Dr. Spock). I was spanked for running in the street, my mom was spanked on "general principles," in case she thought about doing something bad. I'm turning out fine and so did she, imo.

I think I'm more open and straightfoward than the older generation, and perhaps a lot of today's youth is, but I know that a lot is just as conforming as....hmmmm perhaps it's society. In the fifties and sixties, life was about security and conformity. And the rules, whatever rules they might be, made kids conform. And part of conforming was the cleancut image at all costs thing, which among other societal factors spurred rebellion by that generation in its later years and it had different values when raising its kids, but society changed as a whole because of this, so it's still a matter of kids conforming (as a whole), just in a different context. That comes back to your (Francis) generation having a hand in it. I think a very big hand, actually.

*all of this is based on Western stuff, as I really have no idea about the generational changes in other parts of the world.

[/s**t]

Obviousman wrote:

boudicca wrote:Children are not born into the world with a sense of morals, good behaviour and respect for others. It has to be learnt.

Still, it appears nature is winning over nurture in psychology. I once have been taught the influence of your education is of minor importance on who you'll become. Your peers and influences (of which your parents are but a small part) are only a part of you, and your DNA appears to tell a whole lot about you as well.

Hmm, I have to say, for every study you could find like that, you'd be likely to find another that stresses the dominance of nurture over nature.

I think we have some in-built "morality" as human beings - because in my opinion morality is nothing but the rules which ensure human beings will survive and flourish as a species. We're born with a natural aversion to going out and chopping people's heads off because it serves no good to us or those genetically close to us (i.e. other humans). I think many of us would like to think it's something "higher" than that, those who would prefer not to think we might just be globs of cells loving and living and dying on a fundamentally amoral and meaningless planet with no great point whatsoever.



But there's also that "selfish gene" - your own little group of genes and chemicals and DNA is the one you most want to protect (with the exception of your children, those who would carry them forward). I think in most modern societies, particularly those founded around religions which stress altruistic principles (hypocritically, since they're rarely capable of following them), hugely underestimate and... simply wish to deny the fundemental and quite natural selfishness of human beings.
Especially children, who are seen in some sort of Christ-child way. They could not be born inherently selfish, could they...? that would make them evil! To me this view is the product of a society which has long been divorced from (human) nature, seeing natural traits (which perform a serious survival function) as sins, and therefore unwilling to recognise and deal with them in their angelic, "sin"-less offspring in their formative years.

boudicca wrote: we might just be globs of cells loving and living and dying on a fundamentally amoral and meaningless planet with no great point whatsoever.

are we not? well without the 'loving' obviously.

I think Pete Townsend hit the nail right on the head back in 73



its a long one folks, please stick with it, thank you

THE WHO - The Punk And The Godfather Lyrics
[PUNK:]
You declared you would be three inches taller
You only became what we made you.
Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
You only earned what we gave you.
You fell and cried as our people were starving,
Now you know that we blame you.
You tried to walk on the trail we were carving,
Now you know that we framed you.

[G.F.:]
I'm the guy in the sky
Flying high Flashing eyes
No surprise I told lies
I'm the punk in the gutter
I'm the new president
But I grew and I bent
Don't you know? don't it show?
I'm the punk with the stutter.
My my my my my mmmm my my my.

GGGGG-g-g-g-g generation.

[PUNK:]
We tried to speak between lines of oration
You could only repeat what we told you.
Your axe belongs to a dying nation,
They don't know that we own you.
You're watching movies trying to find the feelers,
You only see what we show you.
We're the slaves of the phony leaders
Breathe the air we have blown you.

[G.F.:]
I'm the guy [etc.]

I have to be careful not to preach
I can't pretend that I can teach,
And yet I've lived your future out
By pounding stages like a clown.
And on the dance floor broken glass,
The bloody faces slowly pass,
The broken seats in empty rows,
It all belongs to me you know.

[PUNK:]
You declared [etc.]

canon docre wrote:

boudicca wrote: we might just be globs of cells loving and living and dying on a fundamentally amoral and meaningless planet with no great point whatsoever.

are we not? well without the 'loving' obviously.

I think we are. Even the loving is just a product of our little cells attaempts to keep on swarming over the earth. Doesn't make it any less real to experience. But for all our high-falutin emotions and attatchments...

"We're random coils of DNA so let's all just get pissed".

boudicca wrote:"We're random coils of DNA so let's all just get pissed".

you don't partake of 'drink', or is there something we should know?

James Blast wrote:

boudicca wrote:"We're random coils of DNA so let's all just get pissed".

you don't partake of 'drink', or is there something we should know?

smart cells don't destroy themselves.

boudicca wrote:I think we are. Even the loving is just a product of our little cells attaempts to keep on swarming over the earth.

Excuse me while I take your comments on reproduction, entirely out of context, as carte blanche to start going all amoral and sit around doing nowt

Offer excludes the broody and fertile

canon docre wrote:

James Blast wrote:

boudicca wrote:"We're random coils of DNA so let's all just get pissed".

you don't partake of 'drink', or is there something we should know?

smart cells don't destroy themselves.

Aye. But in large groups they do silly things. Peer pressure is a bitch, even at a cellular level

Largely, I'd agree with Boud's comments, but tonight I'm almost with Francis. Just speny much of the day nattering to a 17-yr old lad and his girlfriend, the lad being a longstanding family friend, though he seems to have bypassed his awkward teenage phase in record time, and now holds his own in conversation and (more importantly, p1ss-taking, and introduced his g/f as 'a Rammstein fan, you'll like Dave'...and we got on famously.

I guess there's hope, however slight, for the world yet. Or at least a handful of its inhabitants.

I could be really trite and say 'Have yourself a kid and you'll understand what unconditional love is'. But I know many of you whom I consider to be worthy role models haven't, so that's obviously just my perspective. As for the Pope's religious values, that presupposes that the Ten Commandments were handed down from on high, whereas I'v long since been of the persuasion that god is and embodiment of humankind's vision rather than the other way round. And as for fearing your peers Claire, maybe you should get that manicin stand out of your arse.

Francis wrote:I could be really trite and say 'Have yourself a kid and you'll understand what unconditional love is'.

I don't think that's at odds with anything I've said. I don't see how recognising that the attatchments living creatures feel towards each other, and above all their offspring (because every animal does have this, we call it "love" when applied to ourselves), are all part of a constant (and quite probably fundamentally pointless) drive for LIFE to continue on this planet... I don't see how that somehow negates any kind of love (be that the love of a child or any other kind).
You could look at anyone you love, especially your own child, and the feeling is so strong and consuming that it might seem almost offensive to a lot of people to think all this emotion comes from wired-in instincts to protect and propagate your genes, your DNA, the future of your species. That the reason you would do anything for your child is because millions of years of evolution have programmed you to make the continuation of your little coils of GATTACA (or whatever it is) the fundamental driving force in your life.
It's like the question, what if love could be boiled down to chemicals and science? It could sound very cold and hard, but why should it be? It doesn't make the feelings or the love any less. Without this unconditional love you describe life on earth would probably have failed a long long time ago. Seeing it scientifically doesn't diminish the beauty or power of each individual experience of these emotions.

I also don't see that disciplining your child or acknowledging that if you don't, they will grow up very badly, stands in opposition to unconditional love. Yes, of course you'll love your kid whatever they do - even if they mug an old lady - but love doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they like and not get into any trouble for it. On the contary, that's psychologically damaging, leniency to the point of cruelty, IMHO.

Francis wrote:And as for fearing your peers Claire, maybe you should get that manicin stand out of your arse.

Fear? I don't fear them. If anything, they've probably always feared me.
As for the mannequin *ahem* stand lodged in my behind, once I get it out I'll promptly shove it up yours!

Give us a cuddle chuck.

While we're on the topic of future generations...

Von's first and only law of parenthood:

"Drowning at birth."

(from the penultimate UTR, if I recall.)