I'm speechless.

[pakman]

You present an interesting dilema. Do parents have the right to take legal, yet (to us) extreme measures to try to change the "thinking" in their children?

Here you get into a legal "gray area" where infringing on a parents' rights to discipline their child or children. Personally, when I was a child I recieved corporal punishment. Some people consider that abuse now, but I wasn't abused. Other parents just tell kids to go to their room and take a more 'hands-off" approach to discipline. This grays area is easy to see, and it would be very hard to draw up specifics of abuse, neglect, etc. I would like to know how the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) determines whether a child has been abused. What does abuse constitute? Another thing in the article was that it costs more than $40k/yr to send a child to these institutions. Paying that much means that both parents probably work and thus leave their children t home to fend for themselves or with a nanny. Does that constitute neglect?

Lastly, compare this with what drafted soldiers would endure in boot camp and military service.

Bad comparison. The military is a teaching environment where the troops are taught more teamwork than anything else, not the selfish attituded that these children seem to have when they are done. Sure, what you see on tv does happen, but it's not personal. Troops are encouraged the whole time. This type of punishment is personal, attacking the child's psyche. Remember the book 1984? That is what this institution is doing, psychological manipulation for the benefit of themselves.

-pakman

[Guest]

"Troops are encouraged the whole time."

You making stuff up too. Actually one of the basic concepts in some boot camps is to break you down and build you back up.

Many people dont actually "break", but most at least come out much stronger for it and learn t o appritiate they they can not control or disregard the world around them but rather have to work with in it.

[kandrathe]

One argument would be that these teens are being taught the teamwork of living in the world. I would disagree with that argument in part. They do learn about real consequences for foolish behavior, but their selfish attitude is manifested because of the mental conditioning they receive. In that world, it is all about them, they are encouraged and rewarded to "inform" on each other. There is no teamwork in that environment, just them against the world. They learn to survive by looking out for #1. If they were to encourage teamwork, it may be the entire system would devolve into a battle between adults and children, or wardens and inmates. This way, they learn to trust no one.

My comparison to the military was not to be exact, just that it is a place where people are subjected to mental conditioning (re-education), and sometimes against their wills. Then again, my experience is only from observation, as I've never been through it myself.

[pakman]

Neutrino Tomahawks

-pakman

[pakman]

Grrrrrr.......double post...my bad.

[TaiDaishar]

"Troops are encouraged the whole time."

You making stuff up too. Actually one of the basic concepts in some boot camps is to break you down and build you back up.

I'm not knowledgable in USA boot camps or the such but the ones in Israel I am knowledgable enough.

For start, most people join the army by choice (not the case in Israel, but it's still the majority).

Secondly, boot camps rarely last more than 2 months and you still get time for yourself and able to go out every week or so.

Third, the troops ARE encouraged the whole time (most of it at least), they're encouraged to do the best they can and to do it together, they are taught to be self less (telling on someone will get both the teller and the told to be punished unless it's one of a few strict major crimes).

Fourth, you've seen way too many movies.

[Guest]

I personally know too many Marines.

[kandrathe]

My impression was that boot camp's main goal is to remake you into a soldier that takes orders, marches and thinks as a part of a unit, and subjegates ones actions to that of the command structure. No talking back, no questioning an order, no free lance solutions to problems, only to do as you are told. When to sleep, eat, crap, exercise, etc.

I think there are other higher order training schools that are designed to remake you hard. Ranger school, SEAL training, Green Beret's, etc.

[Occhidiangela]

A key theme of boot camp is to get the individual focusing on The Team and not on their own sorry little problems.

Your comment tells me you never went to boot camp.

[Occhidiangela]

for kandrathe:

The intitial thrust of the basic, or boot, training is to acclimatize the troop to the concept of the chain of command, and to the artificial environment that is military life. Those who have played for a demanding football coach have little to learn there. :)

However, there is more to it than that and the focus of "give it up for the team" is high on the list. The other focus is to get the most out of each indivicual, to get them used to putting forth 100%.

Once out of basic/boot, the troop will go to further training which nowadays includes a hell of a lot more than 'shut up and follow orders, soldier.'

You then get to field training exercises, in an assigned combat unit, where as part of a team the troop/Marine is expected to use initiative consistent with the orders, consistent with 'the plan.' (Sometimes plans suck.)

Spec Forces school, Jump School, Seal Training, and for that matter Ranger School, are advanced training that go to folks who have been screened for a great number of atributes.

[pakman]

Here take a look at this and make a decision.

[Moldran]

A key theme of boot camp is to get the individual focusing on The Team and not on their own sorry little problems.

I don´t see how this contradicts what Ghostiger said.

Moldran

[Guest]

What I said is not in coflict with what you said. I didnt use the wonderful jargon -"team", but the principal is the same when you actually think about it..

[Guest]

By any definition I am no more troll than half the posters on the LL(genneral forum).

But my opinions are not very popular, but spartan in nature. This causes people to respond by attacking me.

I challenge you to read my last 25, 50, whatever number of posts then compare to a couple of other posteres here. There is nothing notable about my posts other than than their relative civility and their independent nature.

[kandrathe]

Yes, that is what I was trying to say. It seems like one is not considered fully a soldier until they have completed basic training. Basic is considered to be a transformation process. After that, they have proven more or less that they have accomodated the military way, and are now more free to use initiative to complete their missions, plans, orders, etc. Those soldiers who are the highest achievers and/ or distinguish themselves are offered advanced training opportunities.

[Occhidiangela]

You have never been to boot camp.

You think you know what you are talking about.

In short, you don't.

Team, friend Ghostiger, is not about jargon, it is what the whole process is aimed at. Making an effective, if entry level, member of a combat team.

If you want to get after anyone's jargon, first know what you are talking about, then consider the following ad campaign:

"An Army of One."

Oxymoron, anyone?

[Guest]

Occhi you are just saying Im wrong because Im not a Marine, but you are not saying why.

If you closely read what i said you would see its the same as what you said. And yes the word "team" is jargon. The concept isnt(working together to achive more than alone), but the word has become its own little entity.

[Wapptor]

@kandrathe (because this is a late reply)

"You present an interesting dilema. Do parents have the right to take legal, yet (to us) extreme measures to try to change the "thinking" in their children?"

Well, that depends how much you value the individual. If the individual is favored, then the answer is no. But if society and the people (especially those near to the children who ARE minors) are favored then the answer seems to be yes. Basically it's a question of whether the person themself or the problem and the dangers associated with it are more important. The problem is, it's merely an argument of two opinions facing eachother.

"Now, back to what you said. Hmmm, human rights. Firstly, they should have the right to be in a safe environment. I didn't read about any allegations of physical abuse, although I think the punishment by restraint is a form of physical incarceration. The right to have proper clothing, nutrition, and shelter. The right to have access to health care, and education. Again, it seems that these kids are being cared for. Remember, I'm on your side. I disagree with the reasoning, and methods. The child is in effect incarcerated, with their only crime being the loss of trust of their parents."

You are just taking into account the physical aspect of the issue. Consider the mental scarring associated with such a "treatment". Obviously you assume everyone is entitled to physical security, but what about mental? Shouldn't "the right to be in a safe environment" apply to both physically and mentally safe? If people are given "The right to have proper clothing, nutrition, and shelter", they should have an equally healthy atmosphere for their minds, spiritual essence, souls or whatever you would call it. They do get health care and education, you are right they are not being mutilated or anything like that, but you are only assessing(spelling!?) the basic, external, physical needs of a human being.

Since you are "on my side", I am also on yours :P. We both disagree with the methods used in this facility. However I think the issue is greater than just physical abuse but the whole disregard for the "victim" as a person but rather something much more like a "dysfunctional unit" which needs repairs. It's almost like sending your car to the shop, except the car is alive. The whole process is only looked at from an objective point of view, however people are not machines, but complex animals and deserve more respect than this place gives them.

-Wapptor

[Wapptor]

There is a navy base near us and I am friends with quite a few guys who work there. A friend of mine actually "loved" basic training heh. The way he described it was this: They don't want you to think, but just do. That is really the mental aspect. The rest of it is just physical conditioning, weapons training etc which continues to infuse the "don't think, just do" aspect of the training. The finished product is a person, knowledgable in various military technicalities, in good physical shape, who knows who their leader is and how to follow orders. This is what makes a team possible.

The whole idea is very similar to the idea of a crew upon for example a ship. No one man can sail a 100 ft boat by himself, however with an obedient crew he can. The idea is that only one person may think and that the others just work as sort of "second arms" for him. The people need to UNDERSTAND what they are doing but not think about it. If they were the good thinkers they would likely be captains. One man thinks and controls the boat, everyone else just works. They need to be obedient and capable, nothing more, nothing less.

The reason boot camp comes off as so tough is because the issue at hand when creating soldiers is much more serious. A boat may not get the sail raised in time, it will be ok. An army NEEDS to work efficiently in order to survive. "When I ask you to jump soldier, you will respond with How High?!!!"

-Wapptor

[Occhidiangela]

What I am nagging you about is the assertion that the gentleman in question, kandrathe, was "making stuff up." What he had to say makes more sense than what you have to say, based on my own experience, which includes quite a few years of serving with Marines as professional colleagues.

Your glib reference to "team" as jargon is mistaken, and beyond that, I suppose you probably don't understand what being on a team really is if you refer to it as "jargon."

I've been an athlete/sports player all my life -- albeit I am now quite the "has been" -- and being on a team, being a solid team mate is not jargon: it is a very real thing.

Enough.

You have made up your own mind, which I suppose is good enough for your own purposes, and will probably stand you in good stead at present.