To each their own (mature language)

[Lark]

To be honest I'm always skeptical about "be yourself" reasoning most of the time, incredibly attractive message but I just imagine someone telling Ted Bundy or the like to "be yourself".

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

To be honest I'm always skeptical about "be yourself" reasoning most of the time, incredibly attractive message but I just imagine someone telling Ted Bundy or the like to "be yourself".

I think there needs to be a caveat added to the "be yourself" message that states unless being yourself infringes on the rights of others - in which case they have the right to defend themselves - and conflict might ensue.

 

[multicell]

Oh I see, I shouldn't be such a minimalist it's wrong of me. I live in the United States and our social services don't interfere until something drastic has already happened or someone has sought help, the only people that involve themselves before that generally have no affiliation with authority. I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

I have no problem with institutions or systems, they're a mark of accomplishment. However, what do you mean by :

to prevent where possible failure then to try and prevent other inevitable consequences or further failures.

------------------------

Well, I've never read Herbert Spencer so I might have to in order to fully understand what you're saying here but could you explain what you mean by:

if we decide that these failures are tolerable or even necessary its a matter of dispensing with all these services.

What happens when intolerance goes to far? What kind of failures would lead to the dispensing of social services if is if they were tolerated.

 

[mr.awesome]

sounds like Catcher in The Rye :]
i think that idea is the only plausible way to approach real life. im not even sure if you can provide people with a life situation and tell them what to do.
[someone created a theory about this and never went through with it because its unrealistic and inhuman to do, but someone had the idea to completely control a childs environment and growth development, surround them in a way in which you could control their environment to try to shape their personality. had something to do with nature/nurture]
in said theory the person would never really fail because their whole existence would be a self fulfilling prophecy, but its simply not humane to test that on a living person.
that idea can be applied to overprotective parents and people who wouldnt let their child fail. its too constricting, so to say.

people learn to drive by putting fourth interest and effort into driving a vehicle,
people learn to play guitar by putting fourth interest and effort into playing guitar.
people dont learn how to drive by being locked inside a car dealership.
people dont learn how to play guitar by being locked in a room with country western musicians.
people learn and develop themselves upon their own free will, not by being given sure-fire life tools.

my point had gotten somewhat side tracked into nature/nurture but i believe its still relevant.

 

[Lark]

Oh I see, I shouldn't be such a minimalist it's wrong of me. I live in the United States and our social services don't interfere until something drastic has already happened or someone has sought help, the only people that involve themselves before that generally have no affiliation with authority. I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

I have no problem with institutions or systems, they're a mark of accomplishment. However, what do you mean by :



------------------------

Well, I've never read Herbert Spencer so I might have to in order to fully understand what you're saying here but could you explain what you mean by:



What happens when intolerance goes to far? What kind of failures would lead to the dispensing of social services if is if they were tolerated.

Our social services have to respond to any report of suspected neglect or abuse, sometimes this can be a child refusing to get out of bed or remaining withdrawn from all social interaction for long enough. Its not always life and death. The responsibilities are different because effectively UK and EU legislation treats children as in some sense liberated minors, they reside at particular addresses and receive care from those there, who may or may not be parents. Responsibility for care and welfare pretty much rests with the state. In the US I know children are pretty much the property of their parents, child welfare is entirely a parental responsibility too, the state intervenes where crimes, like criminal neglect, are taking place.

Herbert Spencer was a UK libertarian who believed that the state shouldnt even be involved in providing sewers and all these utilities and even things like roads or foot paths should be entirely privately owned or sponsored. He was the original tax resistor and believed that any and all action by the state or anyone else to mitigate or povide relief from suffering was bad because suffering was a signal, like pain in the body, needed to flag problems and provide motivation for certain behaviour and deterrence from other behaviour.

So he'd suggest that failure, such as child neglect, even abhorent things like child prostitution or child murder, should be reported but not necessitate actions by the state so much as provide a cautionary tale to others or an example of behaviour by which no one ultimately prospers or profits. In his defence some people quote him saying that altruism and charity are sufficient to remedy the worst, prevent starvation etc. although I think that's over emphasised, the guy clearly believed in no second chances and consequences/dessert of the harshest sort.