Todays Teens

Very good points!

Each child is totally different though you are absolutely right! And I am still 19 about to finish my bachelors degree with highest honors. I am stil a teen and definitely not lazy. Depends on the situation.

It seems that you are making the argument that technology has filled in for effort, and having deep knowledge has been replaced with information access and ubiquity.

This is a reasonable argument, and one that is partially made in Mark Bauerlein's "The Dumbest Generation" (his focus is on the social, rather than intellectual, implications of ubiquitous technology access) as well as Maggie Jackson's "Distracted."

OK i just want to point out this post was flagged TWICE. There is NOTHING wrong with this post at all, so whoever flagged it I want you to raise your hand above your head and give yourself a pat on the back you need it. Then maybe you could explain to me why it was flagged.

I don't see a reason for that one to be flagged either. We are just discussing...

No offense, but your adolescence was in the 2000s not in the 90s. Us who are in the late Gen-X and early Gen-Y (read: those of us in our 30s) grew up in the 90s. The formative years that dictate your individualism definitely starts in the early ages of development between birth through 10-13. However, once you reach adolescence and start to forcibly, rebelliously, and purposefully expressing your individualism, developing your tastes, your attractions, etc; those things happen in adolescence.

I fully remember being a teenager. I remember it being hard. I remember being overwhelmed with school, work, and extracurricular activities. I remember being told how lazy I was because I didn't clean my room. (I *still* don't clean my room)

BUT, I agree with you on one thing... it is up to the parents. Another BUT, they have to start when the kids are young. (toddlers, preschool, early education) Most children decide by the time they are 11 (5th grade) if they're going to drop out. Something needs to be done sooner.

My eldest daughter loves school. She loves learning new things. This is something that we cultivate by learning about different things. If she asks a question, we look up the answer if we don't know it already. My youngest is already interested in school. Knows her letters and her numbers, knows most shapes and colors. But I work with her, as I worked with my eldest. And I don't know how many times a day I correct grammar. (So don't worry students, it's not just you!)

And I'm glad that we can discuss things like ADULTS. You can't learn from others if you're busy getting uppity about what they're saying.

Yeah, we should be able to discuss. I dont think that anyone means to offend just state thoughts

But, stating thoughts MUST be done in the most respectful and understanding manner. Let's be sure that we do our "opinionating" in a way that doesn't make anyone feel badly and try to do it in a way that doesn't pass judgment. I don't want Zuul in here unless she has something to say, not to pass the spankings out! (Not that I don't want spankings! )

PS, "opinionating" is not a word... I take liberties

Right. Most of us here are mature enough to disagree and not get snotty about it, I think. Sexyintexas and I disagreed, but that's cool, as it's part of free flowing discussion and we both respected each other's POVs and opinions. I don't think disagreeing in an adult manner is a flagging offense.

I don't get the flagging either.

Stating thoughts is part of communication, and written communication is all we have in an environment like this. Sometimes these thoughts are externally verifiable and, if they hold, are found to be facts rather than opinions.

However, the goal of communication--as I know it--is to convey ideas and figures in my head to yours (and, conversely, for you to express your ideas to me), and to do this with as much fidelity and resolution as possible. If an argument (capital "A" here) is perfectly and irrefutably clear, it is likely because it is either universally accepted as a fact (and may or may not be), or it has conveyed the author's intent to a degree such that it is totally understandable.

Hence, rooting about in language to find meaning is necessary, and one of the hallmarks of someone interested in getting to the heart of what another is saying, rather than prima facie taking an argument (again, capital "A") and either misconstruing or otherwise conflating it with something it is not, is engaging in the kind of back-and-forth civil discourse that is typically required (as most ideas do not spring fully-formed, Athena-like, from the minds of their originators).

In this kind of an environment--one that supports this back-and-forth discovery--we may opine (remember, it is rare for ideas to be conveyed fully-formed. I know the vast majority of mine aren't.) and seek the better of two arguments. If we instead reflexively engage in an ad hominem mode of communication, progress toward a larger goal of understanding will never be made.