Yaxley-Lennon supporter to be prosecuted

[Doppleganger]

I would be amazed to find that not one of the extremist violent nutters in the EDL/BNP/NF/NA has ever explicitly espoused their ideology to their children.

Agreed. I share your opinion.
But is that the same as actively and consciously teaching them to be racist?
Or is it a display of their own opinions, unaware that their children will copy and learn that behaviour, which they gain some perverted satisfaction from, when their children display the same prejudices? I'm not sure.
Is it the same as a burglar teaching his children to burgle? Would that, does that happen?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Agreed. I share your opinion.
But is that the same as actively and consciously teaching them to be racist?

Of course it is.

Or is it a display of their own opinions, unaware that their children will copy and learn that behaviour, which they gain some perverted satisfaction from, when their children display the same prejudices? I'm not sure.

Don't be daft.

 

[Doppleganger]

But that is the same point as this:

So you are arguing against yourself.

The former is passive examples, the latter is active education.

Precisely: proves you are arguing against yourself.

Thank you for agreeing with me, sometimes you do see sense

We don't agree. Although you may agree with me. I do not agree with your original statement, above.
The presentation of passive examples is different from active teaching.
I argued that parents should not present bad examples. That is different from the need to actively teach children not to be prejudiced.

 

[Doppleganger]

Of course it is.

We must agree to disagree on this. I prefer my version which you may think is daft but it is more acceptable to me.
I prefer to think that parents are prejudiced simply because they have adopted bad habits/behaviour rather than having a malevolent intention.
Hmmmm, now I've written that I might have to reappraise my opinion. Racism is inherently malevolent.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We must agree to disagree on this.

Fine.

You drift around believing that not one RWR has ever told his children in words what he thinks, or that even if he did that is not going to teach the child anything.

The rest of us can inhabit the real world.

 

[Doppleganger]

Fine.

You drift around believing that not one RWR has ever told his children in words what he thinks, or that even if he did that is not going to teach the child anything.

The rest of us can inhabit the real world.

I fully agree that RWR will express their opinion.
It is only the motivation/intended result encapsulated in that expression, that we disagree.

 

[Notch7]

We don't agree. Although you may agree with me. I do not agree with your original statement, above.
The presentation of passive examples is different from active teaching.
I argued that parents should not present bad examples. That is different from the need to actively teach children not to be prejudiced.

It isnt about agreeing.

You are wrong, thats all.

As I said, you like to argue with yourself.

 

[Doppleganger]

It isnt about agreeing.

Is it not?
Do you still argue that there is no difference between passively presenting examples, good or bad (which indicates that they aren't intended to teach but are just unconscious behaviour), and actively teaching the correct behaviour?

 

[ellal]

Do you know the kid is in a household with extreme views.

It's a good bet that he is...

Linky

"The mother of the schoolboy suspected of waterboarding a Syrian refugee is a convicted racist who spat at a chip shop owner, it has emerged.
The woman, who can't be named for legal reasons, was fined after the attack in which she called the takeaway worker a 'P**i' and a 'terrorist'.
She was arrested after the incident in a chip shop in March last year and pleaded guilty to racially aggravated threatening behaviour."

"The alleged school bully comes from a family with convictions for far-right offences, as his brother was jailed after a Britain First rally erupted in violence"

 

[darrington]

There's many out there in mosques that feed "their" kids with extreme views as well, so let's keep this balanced!!!

 

[Doppleganger]

There's many out there in mosques that feed "their" kids with extreme views as well, so let's keep this balanced!!!

If you can't see the difference between incitement to violence, carried out in a public place, and passive examples of bad behaviour which actually lead to violence......
The rare occasion of anyone inciting violence has been proven and the perpetrator punished.
The vastly more numerous occasions of kids being presented with examples of bad behaviour are difficult to prove, difficult to eradicate and are almost acceptable forms of parenting to some.

In addition, this is not a case of this bad behaviour is OK because there are other contrasting forms of bad behaviour.
Bad behaviour is bad behaviour per se. It can neither be justified nor 'balanced' by other forms of bad behaviour.

 

[Notch7]

The vastly more numerous occasions of kids being presented with examples of bad behaviour are difficult to prove

So it would be a good idea to teach them good behaviour.

Oh wait a minute, somebody suggested that already:

Yes, we do need to teach people not to be racist, prejudice or whatever

Perhaps you need to stop getting bogged down in semantics and go back to basics, ie listen to others

 

[Doppleganger]

So it would be a good idea to teach them good behaviour.

Oh wait a minute, somebody suggested that already:


Perhaps you need to stop getting bogged down in semantics and go back to basics, ie listen to others

Like I have said numerous times, there is a massive difference between passive examples (John's version: "immersion" which aptly describes the process of learning by being immersed in the culture ), and active teaching.
If the bad examples are absent in the first place, people do not need to be taught (re-educated). They learn the correct behaviour from immersion.
Think about children learning to swear, (learning from passive examples) and then being taught that swearing is not acceptable.
It is teaching to correct a learned bad behaviour. If they had not learned the bad behaviour, they do not need to be taught the correct behaviour.

If you think that learning from passive examples, and actively being taught, are the same, you are mistaken.
But I don't think you really do believe your own argument. I think you do understand the difference.

 

[Notch7]

If they had not learned the bad behaviour, they do not need to be taught the correct behaviour.

That is rubbish.

Why do you think sex education is taught to youngish children -your argument would suggest its to correct the bad behaviour. it isnt it is for prevention.

Your argument is saying that teaching can only be reactive. -if that were the case, why teach children the green cross code?

You do like dancing around on the head of pin to prove your point.

 

[Doppleganger]

Your argument is saying that teaching can only be reactive.

I said no such thing.
You are confusing education with re-education.
There is a difference between education and re-education, the clue is in the words.
Accountants, Acupuncturists, Aeronautical Engineers, etc do not need to be re-educated.