Since this is a satire, each of the suggestions is actually what NOT to do.

Questions for debate:

Which items on the list are most important?

Which are least important?

Which aspects are today's parents most guilty of?

Is this an accurate list for things not to do when raising kids?

Logo's Twelve [Alternate] Rules for Raising Delinquent Children

1. Give the child nothing. In this way, he will grow up to believe that the world is harsh and unredeeming where the misery eventually leads to death after a pointless, painful life.

2. When he misbehaves or picks up bad words, punch him repeatedly in the face. This will show him how physical harm is always justified when he doesn't like what people are saying or doing.

3. Force spiritual training on him. Either he will come to despise the "family" religion or he will become so fanatical that he will eventually believe that bombing things he doesn't like is permitted by God.

4. Always use the word "wrong." That way he can realize that he is the sinner that he is. He will understand that the only purveyor of "rightness" is not and will never be himself. He will realize that authority figures are the only source of "right".

5. Do nothing for him so that he will have to earn everything himself including the food he eats, the clothes he wears and home he lives in. Put him out to the street and let him find his own way. If he dies, so be it.

6. Let him read, watch, and listen to nothing. He will be so desperate for information that his mind will be open for any scrap of information you may choose to provide for him.

7. Never show any emotion in his presence. In this way he will be shocked when his own home is broken up later.

8. Never give a child spending money. He must understand that only authority figures have the money and can choose what that money is spent upon. He must understand that his choices and desires mean nothing.

9. Deny his every craving. Satisfaction may lead to harmful frustration.

10. Never take his side against teachers, coaches, and other adult authority figures. Authority figures are always right, particularly that nice male neighbor next door who lives alone and has taken a keen interest in the child...

11. When he gets into real trouble, never make excuses for him. Always blame the child. He deserves it.

12. Never allow him to talk negative (whine and complain) or act like a fool. This will keep him from ever having to take responsibility for his actions, particularly, if he happens to be sick or hurt and dies.

Point taken, logophage. Extremism is bad. If any blanket statement is true, it is that one.

However, which end of the spectrum is worse overindulging a child or underindulging him? (Assuming you have the means to provide either).

I know that I, personally, am more critical of my children's behavior than I am of others. I expect more from them than I do from some stranger's kids.

Personally, one of my pet peeve's of my son's behavior (he's 6) is when he whines or cries to get what he wants. I am adamant about not giving in to such tantrums. However, his mother is much more pliable to this. It drives me nuts (and feeds the behavior).

My basic parenting philosophy is responsibility. Every action has a consequence (or a reward). Doing good things earns praise, doing bad things doesn't and it may earn you a penalty. I try to praise good behavior as much as I can, I really think it helps and is more important (in many cases) than punishment.

Yeah, we're in extreme(ist) agreement on this one.


What's bigger: a little five made of wood or a huge four made of stone?


I'm reminded of something Bill Cosby said in one of his stand-up routines: "Parents aren't interested in fairness; they're interested in quiet." I'm not a parent, however I, similar to you, would likely be the hard-*ss too. This doesn't mean that "giving in" is necessarily incorrect. It's a matter of benefits vs. costs .


I'm all for responsibility. An equally valuable lesson, though, is that some things are completely out of one's control or even sphere of influence. Learning this lesson at an early age can't be bad necessarily, right?

My basic parenting philosophy is responsibility. Every action has a consequence (or a reward). Doing good things earns praise, doing bad things doesn't and it may earn you a penalty. I try to praise good behavior as much as I can, I really think it helps and is more important (in many cases) than punishment.

I completely agree Logo!

This is how I was raised and when I have children I plan to raise them with the same philosophy.

Same here, that's how I raise my children and that's one of the reasons both are at the top of their classes in school and get praised continually for being such good students and role models for the rest of the school.

Unfortunately, far too many people treat breeding as some sort of right, regardless of whether they can take care of them or take responsibility for them or even want them in the first place. So long as you can spread your legs and pop out a unit every 9 months, who cares? I think we need to start looking at breeding as a responsibility and anyone who can't do it shouldn't be allowed.

I follow the same philosophy as well - but I have to disagree with your last paragraph.

It sounds good, but who decides? What's the criteria? How can we know what sort of parent someone will be before they have children? And is someone who had a kid at 15, someone who might have been too young to be a responsible parent, necessarily going to be a bad parent when she has another child at age 30?

Here's one technique to address "responsibility" when raising children: toilet training. Amlord, is this overindulging or underindulging? I'm not sure . What's better: a spoiled brat who expects everything to be handed to them in life or a non-spoiled brat who's dead?

I'm not sure why the subject keeps coming back to egregious abuse of children. Obviously killing and/or beating your child is a bad thing. It is prohibited by law, and social services can take your children away if you do so. Everyone knows that an abusive parent is a bad one.

On the other hand, overindulging your children is bad, too, and it is very easy to do because (as you have noted), it can buy momentary silence. Most normal people love their children and want to protect them, give them everything and it is difficult to set appropriate limits. So, from that perspective, I think one of the worst offenses on that list is number 10: Always take his side against teachers, coaches, and other adult authority figures. Yes, indeed. The teacher is calling you not because your child misbehaved, but because she likes to waste her time and make trouble. During the short time I was a teacher I encountered this a lot. I actually had a parent demand that I give her child back a bottle of perfume I confiscated, which she had been running around and spraying the other kids in the face with during class. This behavior was fine by her. I also remember when my father followed a vandal home. The 16 year old kid had been knocking down mailboxes with a crowbar every night for a week. My father waited up and watched, then followed his car to his home. The next day he went to the house and brought the matter to the kid's father's attention. Immediately the man said, "My boy would never do that!" My father explained that he saw it with his own eyes and followed his son to this house. Without missing a beat he charged, "How dare you follow my son!"

Mrs. P, of course, your points are valid and I agree with them. The debate, though, started with certain facetious overtones. When looking to pose the debate in terms of extremes expect extremes in return . Nevertheless, it is possible in each of the examples you have given for the adult to have been in the wrong (clearly not you). A parent, a teacher, a child must learn to navigate the various perspectives to discern the best course of action. The best way to do this is to treat various information sources skeptically. Try to correlate those information sources to corroborate a conclusion. Of course, children tend to have a stronger sense of self-interest than adults, however this doesn't mean their statements are incorrect. Ultimately, though, I think it is better to pick your battles. Not every action or inaction a child takes in her life matters enough to enforce a strict ethical standard a parent may have in mind.

Can a childless person get in on this discussion?

There was an item that didn't make this list, at least not indirectly, but in my opinion it should be #1, and that would be "Center the world around your child." While I certainly believe that children should be their parents' first consideration in a theoretical sense, it seems to me that too many parents today let their kids completely run their lives.

I have friends with kids who haven't seen a non-kid-marketed movie in years because they ONLY go to or rent the movies their kids want to see, and they all go to bed at the same time as their kids, so waiting till Johnny and Susie are in bed isn't even an option.

These same friends will refuse invitations that don't include their children because "our children go wherever we go" and they're offended if you want to have an adults-only party.

I certainly realize that with both parents working in most families, Mom and Dad don't want to be further separated from their children during off-work hours, but I still think some parents carry it to an excess. One of my best friends' daughters is an "attachment parent" and her two kids have been SLEEPING with her and her husband, every night, since the day they were born, and she still nurses them both. They are now one and three years old. While I won't argue the benefit of breastfeeding -- and the fact that it's easier to keep a baby in the mom's room the first few months -- when can a couple be a couple?

Yes, I know -- I don't have kids so what do I know? It's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.

As for the questions:

Which items on the list are most important?

Which are least important?

Which aspects are today's parents most guilty of?

Is this an accurate list for things not to do when raising kids?

I think all of the items are important, and none of them strikes me as "least important." I couldn't really number them myself. The list certainly seems accurate today.

And as to the question about which item is most prominent among modern parents, I'd say #1.

Amlord and Logophage, you have already discussed that either extreme is bad. Here's my take on where the happy medium lies.

1. Give the child everything (or nothing) he wants.
My philosophy is to say "yes" whenever possible. If my child asks me (nicely) if we can go to Arctic Circle, I have no problem giving in, so long as we have the money and the time. There's no good reason to say no just to "teach" my daughters (5, 3, and 6 mos.) they can't have everything they want. At the same time, if there are good reasons to say no, I try not to give in, while explaining to them why I'm saying no.

2. When he misbehaves or picks up bad words, laugh at him (or punch him in the face).
I'm big on appropriate language. While it's not an offense worthy of a flogging, I let my children know that the language is not acceptable. It makes it difficult at times when a TV show or movie we are watching contains a bad word and they pick up on it. At the same time, kindly but firmly explaining to them that the word is not allowed, even though others sometimes do so, has so far worked (although they may talk at length about how there's a "bad word" they can't say ).

3. Never give him any spiritual training (or force the family religion on him).
I think children need to have a solid foundation in their parent's faith. However, as they get older, the parent's need to relax a little, allowing the young adults to think for themselves. At that point, a good example goes a lot further than a thick boot.

4. Avoid using (or always use) the word "wrong."
Children should be corrected and disciplined when they make bad choices, but they need to be positively re-inforced as well. One rule of thumb I've heard is that you should give at least five honest compliments for each criticism. I also try to make sure that I laugh and play with my daughters after the discipline is over.

5. Do everything (or nothing) for him...
Let them wrestle with the problems that face them, but be a listening ear, and a shoulder to stand on when they need it. If they climb a tree, letting them work out how to get back down teaches responsibility. Of course, it takes a smart parent to know when a broken arm isn't worth the education.

6. Let him read, watch, and listen to anything (or nothing) he wants to.
There need to be boundaries. In my home, Rated-R movies are disallowed, and PG-13 are taken on a case-by-case basis. Aside from that, though, I'm fairly open to letting them watch what movies they want, which currently happen to be Care Bears, Strawberry Shortcake, and various Disney princess movies.

7. Quarrel frequently (or never show any emotion) in his presence.
This is one where I think the first extreme wins. If parents have a disagreement, they had better either discuss it calmly, or hash it out away from their kids. Few things are more distressing to a child than to see their top two role models fighting. I don't believe any good comes from showing this kind of emotion.

8. Give a child all the spending money he wants (or none).
I'm not sure where the happy medium is on this one. I am against giving a weekly allowance, for nothing more than having a heartbeat. At the same time, I think it's beneficial to kids to learn the value of money, and making good choices between all the many things to buy with it. What seems to be working for us is compensating chores and other good behavior with Monopoly money, and keeping a long list of rewards they can buy with that money (which in some cases requires me to spend real money on them).

9. Satisfy (or deny) his every craving.
See #1

10. Always (or never) take his side against teachers, coaches, and other adult authority figures.
Requires judgment to discern what the situation really is. When dealing with the authority figure, I think the best approach is to err on the side of defending your child. When dealing with your child, the best approach is to err on the side of defending the authority figure. Within moderation, of course.

11. When he gets into real trouble, (never) make excuses for him.
The key word here is "excuse". If a child does something wrong, it's one thing to be on his side and come to his defense, as appropriate. It's another thing to attempt to excuse his behavior.

12. Always (or never) allow him to talk negative (whine and complain) and act like a fool.
Everyone will, at one point or another, have grievances that need to be addressed. It's a matter of teaching kids how to air those grievances. In my house, a tantrum on the floor results in an immediate nap for the offender. But when they honestly try to tell me they're not happy, I put up with a little whining while they try to express themselves.

I'd have to say that option #11 is most dangerous. Once a kid learns that it isn't his/her fault for their grades, the fact that they are "picked on" by the police, or that the principal "hates" them, then they adopt a false worldview where dangerous behavior is not of their concern. From this and from being bailed out time and again, the kids incorporate this attitude in their belief system and before you know it, they aren't just stealing cars or getting nailed for drug use, they are just "picked on" again by the man and by the "snobs" who look down upon them. Before you know it, they are in prison and the guards are "picking" on them and they have no real way to see the gradual steps that they took to earn their present living condition.

Amlord, That has gotta be the dividing line between parents. regardless of which side takes which side it has to be a major source of unrest in a marriage. my wife always gives in and it drives me insane.



1. Give the child everything (or nothing) he wants.To my experience it is irrelevant on what you give the child in relation to objects. if the child has your attention and love you can have nothing to give your child or even flood them with junk. It really seems to be your interaction and relationship with your child. If they have a solid relationship with you possesions too much/lack of doesn't matter.
Often with kids who get lots of stuff it seems to be the parents way of making up for ignoring their children or guilt for not being able to be there for them.

2. When he misbehaves or picks up bad words, laugh at him (or punch him in the face).What do YOU do? Around me my child doens't swear or throw hissy fits--because i don't put up with them. for my wife she gets the tantrun treatment all the time. If it is something i have a serious worry about--kids playing with fire, knives, etc... my reaction is fairly heavy. on other things "don't do that" It depends on the situation

3. Never give him any spiritual training (or force the family religion on him).
i am not a believer in spiritualism of any kind--so i don't buy into this being a bad thing. My son gets none of the guilt ridden hangups I blame on religion. My beliefs are not spiritual but Reasoned.


4. Avoid using (or always use) the word "wrong." I use it all the time--along with an explanation on whjy and a way to relate it to my kids they can identify with.

5. Do everything (or nothing) for him... They have to be independent, only after they have tried will i assist.


6. Let him read, watch, and listen to anything (or nothing) he wants to.I will lessen restrictions as they get older and return them if they abuse the change.


7. Quarrel frequently (or never show any emotion) in his presence.
Kids can tell if you're upset. too often they assign the blame to themselves never go to bed mad.


8. Give a child all the spending money he wants (or none).Kid has to earn it


9. Satisfy (or deny) his every craving.
Earn it mostly

10. Always (or never) take his side against teachers, coaches, and other adult authority figures.
What happened and who is too blame? that's how i decide?

11. When he gets into real trouble, (never) make excuses for him.
None. Unless the child is not to blame and the trouble comes from other idiots and their hang ups.

12. Always (or never) allow him to talk negative (whine and complain) and act like a fool. never

In looking over the list again, I'd say #3 is really unnecessary. Without taking the thread to where it's not supposed to go, I'd argue that the wording of it should be "an ethical sense of right or wrong." People do not need to be spiritual in order to have a sense of right or wrong.

All that really matters is that they can raise responsible members of society. If they cannot even be one themselves, if they're sitting on welfare, breeding as fast as possible because they want extra money, or just aren't bright enough to figure out what causes it, then why should society as a whole support them?

We're not talking about people who might not parent like you do, we're talking about people who don't have a clue how to parent at all, the ones that ignore the kids because they interfere with their drug habits and drinking binges, stick them in front of the TV for 18 hours a day because they get in the way, take no interest in their education or welfare or health, etc. And unfortunately, I see a *LOT* of those kind of parents around.

We can't just accept that anyone who has the ability to breed should. We require that anyone who drives a car get a license, people should have at least some sort of training in basic parenting skills before they pop out a unit.

Wow, that sounds scary! But if you are going to use this kind of rhetoric, would you mind providing me with some specific examples of parents "sitting on welfare, breeding as fast as possible because they want extra money?" I'd like some names and verifiable sources, please. Really, I mean it. Show me a couple of these people. Describe their lives to me, and how you managed to divine their motivations and decide the value of their lives. In actual fact, Republicans have been using this kind of empty rhetoric for a while, without ever coming up with some real examples. In actual fact, when the Republicans were all gung ho to get rid of the AFDC, they talked a lot about "welfare queens," these mythical people who sat around collecting welfare while driving Cadillacs and eating bon bons - without ever coming up with any concrete examples. In actual fact, EVEN during the days of 'classic' welfare, the AFDC years, the average stay on AFDC was less than two years.



Like who? I do not deny that there are some people in this category, I have seen some myself. And it is a problem. However, I don't see what sort of test could ever possibly predict who these people might be. Again, my point holds - what is the criteria for this 'parenting test?' Who decides? What factors in someone's life predict they will be bad parents? Are you in fact talking about some sort of Eugenics program? Should kids raised below a certain level of poverty be barred from parenthood? It might be a natural human thing for you or I to see some 16 year old loser and conclude that this idiot will never be a good parent, but that doesn't mean we are correct, and it is certainly not something to base any sort of policy off of.



Meaningless. Most accidents are caused by licensed drivers. It's not that I disagree with the first sentence here. It's that in the real world, there is no way to fairly make those decisions for people. I certainly don't have a problem with requiring parenting skills classes in high school, but that's a far cry from requiring people to get a license or pass a test in order to be allowed to reproduce - there's just no practical way to do it. And what would we do about unlicensed parents? How would we enforce this? Take the kids away from them? Maybe lock the parents up? Force some sort of semipermanent (but reversible!) sterilization on every person in the country, until they pass this 'test?' What are the questions on this test, anyway?

From 2000 to 2002, I worked for the top executive of a juvenile court system. While I did not actually work with any kids, I was privy to case files and information about pending cases.

I know that the vast majority of parents never become court-involved, and those that do are mostly divorce cases. The majority of divorce cases were negotiated satisfactorily, which gets my kudos because I'm sure it is hard to deal with that kind of situation in a civil manner -- yet so important.

The tragic element in what I saw was that many parents who DID become court-involved were simply too young, or too ignorant, to have ever become parents in the first place. When a baby cries, a 14-year-old mother is liable to think she's "being bratty" or just trying to make her mom crazy; such a mother may have been (only just) physically capable of reproducing, but is nowhere near emotionally or mentally ready for the job of mothering. So she shakes the baby and it gets brain damage. Or Mom decides that this mom thing sucks and the hell with it, she's going out for the evening, and she leaves the baby with some similarly immature friend, or even alone, and the neighbors call the police after the baby's cried for an hour nonstop and there's no answer at the door.

Most kids in the court system I worked for had two "parts" to their file. The part most people think of when they envision a juvenile court is the "delinquency" records -- truancy, running away from home, vandalism, petty thievery, etc. But almost always, there was a section of "neglect/abuse" records -- the child's FIRST contact with the court had been to try and SAVE him, not punish him.

I don't mean to offer up anecdotal evidence, either; in fact, the idea that people breed to squeeze a few more bucks out of the welfare office is laughable and pathetic. Not much of a return on THAT investment. But I did want to say that as a society, we MUST, in my opinion, teach young people that parenting takes three -- two parents and whatever higher power they rely on for guidance and comfort.

Exactly. If, at any point in a child's life (including adulthood), that child commits a crime, then the parent should automatically be punished: no exceptions. Moreover, the punishment should fit the crime. So, if a person commits murder and undergoes capital punishment, then the parents should also be treated in the same manner. Criminalizing bad parenting would reduce the likelihood of bad children being introduced into society.


Yes, the government should control who can and cannot breed. I propose the following criteria: intelligence (for good engineers), strength (for good soldiers) and race (to maintain a pure society). Anyone breeding without a license should be deported or incarcerated. Of course, incarceration may use too much of our nation's valuable resources so other solutions should be considered.

Let me guess...no kids?

While I understand the sentiment behind this thought, implementing it in the manner described has all sorts of horrendous implications. First, what's to then prevent kids from committing crimes just to get back at their parents? Only the truly naive would think this wouldn't happen. Second, this is assuming that bad kids are solely the product of bad parents, with no other factors. Please offer up proof of this. Without such proof, you then run into the situation of parents doing all they can to raise good kids, or at least making good effort to do so, but being punished for it. Is that really what is desired? Third, doesn't this completely do away with the concept of being responsible for one's own actions? Fourth, this will certainly encourage abuse of kids, as whenever kids made mistakes, the wrath of their parents would often exceed the wrath of the justice system. Again, not sure this is what is wanted. Fifth, at what point does the statute of limitations run out on this? 18? 21? 25? 35? Never? After all, with such legislation, criminals could always put the blame on their parents, who could then blame their parents, and so on. Where would this end? So, again, while I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think this is the path you want at all. There are plenty of ways to get parents more involved in their kids lives without going to this extreme.

I appreciate the enumeration of implications, but this is simply the price you pay for placing the responsibility where it squarely lies: on the parents. Since teachers have a large influence in children's lives, I also would like teachers to be punished for errant children's behavior at any point in the child's life. Upon reaching adulthood, parents and teachers are still responsible for the person they brought into society. Also, the media, particularly the permissive liberal media with all its...well...permissiveness, should be held accountable. Any media source that does not meet high moral standards should be removed from publication/broadcast. Furthermore, those who authored the immoral media programming should be fined and/or incarcerated.

I propose some sort of watchdog group run by the federal government: called the Security Squadron (or SS, for short). There could be a component organization designed specifically for the youth of America. Call it: America's Youth. The SS could have a wide range of authority monitoring the moral character of our nation. It could also ensure that children are raised in a proper manner. Undesirable children would eventually be winnowed to non-existence as parents are held more accountable for their children's actions. Moreover, society would encourage proper moral behavior by removing undesirable and foreign influences. Remember: strength through joy.

Lol, Logophage, I think Im correct in reading your comments correctly as sarcasm?

You must be having a humorous day. It cant be denied that upbringing and society have something to do with how children turn out, long term, but the short term is the clincher. I think children are so individual.

I think we run a pretty strict household; standardized rules with rewards and ( I know every parent today knows), taking away the video games, child currency situations, but I see that the youngest is going to be our troublemaker. Its just clear in his independant choices, his lack of fear for danger, his total disregard for the norms of society, and hes only 7. Its mine and his fathers Karma for our own previously rebellious nature, Im sure of it!

I think all ten of the listed have importance, but overall, mostly we dont coddle bad, whiny or greedy behavior AT ALL. Lucky we both are usually on the same page, their father being slightly tougher on them overall which I think is good. They are slightly more afraid of getting in trouble with him, the ultimate card. Real expression of feelings is encouraged as long as it isnt of the whiny type.

I agree with jaellon on most things written there.
We are a 'hip' family and the kids are totally modernized so they get to watch and do things other families might frown upon, like seeing programs ( South Park-eek, The Daily Show) , all with the restrictions that the things they hear there are not to be repeated in public , ever, or they lose the priviledge. Or stay up really late on weekends playing video games and have pizza and ice cream at their own discretion.
We talk openly about sex in a healthy way. In this I think we differ from most, but it was important to me having two boys as I saw they were starting to get all google-eyed over breasts and female nudity. I really wanted them to see women and womens bodies as just different from their own and not something of conquest or as objects so we talk about these things as well as masturbation and respect for the privacy of it all.
They were allowed to seek out different religious talk and experiences, until I found my 7 year old halfway across town at the local baptist church with no permission, then we put the kabosh on our local religious zealots who were picking the kids up by bus from the playground and transporting them to church, never knowing if they had parental approval. The preacher told me, 'well theyre safe here,' and I thought, you crazy SOB. How would YOU know? My son is 5 miles from home and you never asked if he could even GET on the bus!

One thing I do know, there are no easy answers and as a parent you are going to mess up, sometimes BIG and you wont even know it until it logs in your kids (or your own) head and they talk to you about it, sooner or much later. Its a sad, joyous and excruciating process.

I do think its really important to be flexible enough for your kids to be able to TALK to you. This is a delicate balance.

On vacation a week ago, I was in Houston staying with friends , one of their daughters best friends (15) shot her mother, twice, once in the head and once in the body. My friends daughter knew this was a possibility, the other girl was at end ropes, but she did not tell her parents. Money was stolen, several teens skipped school that day, (she did not) looking for money in the house, but this daughter was not open with the parents until it was too late, and they are 'cool' parents, but teens are hard cases sometimes. ( As she said, "We all hate our parents, who could know it was serious?")
We dont realize they are older in their mind than they are in their bodies but dont understand the consequences of their actions, or inactions. We were at the bus that day, we saw the girl, she was upset that her report card was going to cause problems at home. Argument ensued and tragedy also. With what looks like premeditation, and she is 15 , she is likely to be tried as an adult , in Texas. Not good.
I have debated with a few here on the Supreme ruling that convicted minors should not be eligible for execution (based heavily on international law etc) and many were hard on the matter, seeing these kids as cogniscent of their actions. It never hit home like this case first hand. Lets say, it was a shocker that begged for debate. Many of the adults admitted to fantasies of killing their parents, but in olden days we were too afraid, or we were just not crazy in rage.

So, on a lighter note, we may think hard about removing playstations and cell phones, perhaps we should give the little monsters everything they want, lest we find ourselves looking down the barrel of our own gun, OR, perhaps we might want to lock up those guns.

I singled these out because, for the most part, I agreed with the intent behind all of the others.



I agree with the principle that you shouldn't treat misbehavior as "cuteness"; it's on the same level as the parents that deliberately encourage their children to have speech impediments.

On the other hand, I also think there's some value in teaching children context when using bad language, instead of simply prohibiting it. My mother allowed me to swear considerably more than other eight-year-olds, as long as I watched my mouth in polite company. As a consequence, I swore considerably less than other sixteen-year-olds when I reached that age. No thrill in it.

Now, I swear considerably less than other twenty-five-year-olds, and I'm better at staying polite when it's necessary.



What, precisely, is the point of this? Or is the Houston Police Department just another in the long list of well-meaning but misguided souls who don't believe that human beings can develop a code of moral behavior without it being told to them once a week by a man who doesn't follow it?

If they'd replaced the word "spiritual" with "moral" or "ethical", I'd agree with them wholeheartedly.



I think that it's vitally important to expose children to works of great moral virtue-- to help teach them how to conduct themselves in society and to get them to thinking, as children, about what it means to be virtuous as adults.

But once this is done, I also think it's vitally important to expose them-- or allow them to expose themselves-- to material of vile offensivesness and no socially redeeming qualities whatsoever. We live in a world of blood and sweat and other, less savory bodily fluids; if children are going to grow up and become adults who can handle the real world-- and all the ugliness within it-- they need to see it for themselves.

Reckon lettin' them see it in books and movies is better than letting them experience it first-hand. Already too much of that going around in society.