I am trying recover from an accident and what do my kids do
one is splitting up the other is married in a month in another country but does not want us to go but the other parents can . and the other kid is too f____g lazy to get a full time job to get out of the house . I wanted to get better but why should I bother when my kids do not appreciate the hard work over the years and putting them through university only to be let down by them . I want to retire to enjoy the fruits of our labor through the years and at least share in their special moment or at least have kids so we can have grandchildren but why do they shut out their parents because in one case marriage is a “piece of paper” . It seems I am trying to get back being 100% to please a “corporate” group rather than the people who I taught better values but in the end have disappointed us . I am just ranting — just ranting
This article appears in Feb 27 – Mar 5, 2014.
First thing I’d do is change the locks on the house. That’ll take care of Mr Lazy. The splitting up one, there’s not much one can do. As for the getting married one, what is the reason given. Did you piss them off some way?
Stop playing the martyr, OP, and start kicking some ass. I wouldn’t take that shit from my kid for love nor money.
The one getting married is probably wishing you were there but does not want to add another burden. Go to the wedding. You will have regrets for a lifetime if you do not.
Let me guess. You are the type of parent who did not believe in strict discipline, allowed them to tell you how it was going to be, what they wanted, needed, should have, were entitled to, etc, etc. You always asked them what they wanted to do instead of telling them how it was going to be, and where you were going to go. The type who always gave the children too many choices of what, where, and when? Then you expect them to respect you when they are older? You did not teach them to respect you then, allowing them to be equals, buddies, and pals. It doesn’t work. It creates ungrateful, unthankful, selfish grown up kids who think the world owes them something.
The time for tough love is when they are wee ones, not when they are adults because brick walls are tough to break down. It is when they are plaster walls that the discipline works and helps. When you are the parent and they are the children. Now you see they treat you like you are the child. You allowed this to happen by wanting to be their friend. Parents when they are young, then friends when they are adults. Indulgence when they are young only breeds trouble later.
Yours truly.
JUST RANTING
“It seems I am trying to get back being 100% to please a ‘corporate’ group rather than the people who I taught better values but in the end have disappointed us. I am just ranting.” Just ranting
This raises an interesting philosophical question: How can one teach “better values”? The question turns on what is to be understood by the concept “to teach.” So what does one do when one teaches?
Clearly, what one does when one teaches turns on the further question of what it is that one is teaching. For example, one would not teach philosophy in the same way that one would teach plumbing. While the latter aims at the acquisition of a skill-set, i.e. how to plumb, the former aims at fostering understanding, of acquiring some insight into the reasons why of things. It asks the question “Why?” which restricts its purview to human activity and not toilet bowls.
The same can be said in respect to science which aims at discovering the nature of the workings of the physical universe. Since such workings are not the results of rational human activity, philosophy doesn’t aim at this either. “A fortiori” (as we say in Latin) the same can be said of mathematics which, while abstract, requires the application of indubitable premises in the form of algebraic or geometric theorems which, given such premises, aims at apodictic or demonstrative certitude. Philosophy doesn’t aim at this either. So where does this take us?
By their nature “better values” inhabit that branch of philosophy formally called “axiology” but “ethics” more commonly. If one is ethical one acts in conformity to one’s value hierarchy which implicitly entails some values are higher or more global than others. But the question still remains: How can one teach better values? It’s a good question. I’m glad you asked. I guess I’m just ranting.
New Avatar Alert! Nazi-Era Artifacts (6)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Ivan Trivia Alert! Max Immelmann; The Eagle of Lille
http://www.gmtgames.com/bloodyapril/immelm…
In honor of Montrealman’s beloved dog, Max, who disappeared under mysterious circumstances while kenneled in Lille, I have posted a picture of WWI German Aviator Max Immelmann, who with his Fokker Eindecker, equipped with Anthony Fokker’s patented interrupter device allowed a forward firing Spandau machine gun to fire through the propeller arc without predictably disastrous results came to epitomize what Allied military leaders termed the “Fokker Scourge” of 1915. He shot down 16 Allied planes and was awarded the Pour le Merite, or Blue Max before being killed in action in May of 1916, ironically, by a malfunction of the same interrupter gear which made him an Ace.
Much as Max the Poodle lives on in the collective memory of Montrealman’s family, so has Immelmann gained immortality, granting his name to both an aerobatic maneuver and the Taktisches Luftwaffengeschwader 51 “Immelmann” (Tactical Air Force Wing 51 “Immelmann”), which flies the Panavia Tornado in the tactical reconnaissance role.
: Col. Ivan Sonofabitch – 95th Rifles (3/01, 9:33AM)
Are you sure the Allied military leaders didn’t term the WWI German Aviator Max Immelman the “Fokking Scourge” of 1915?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Aha! Sounds like the punchline to an old joke about a Battle Of Britain pilot giving a talk to some elementary school students.
“German Fokkers above us, German Fokkers below us. Fokkers was everywhere, they were”
The teacher felt constrained to point out to her class that “Fokker was a type of German aeroplane”
to which the aged Brylcream Boy replied –
“Aye – but most of them Fokkers was flying Messerschmidts”
Ba-Dum Bum. Tssshhhhhhhh
Fooking Messershits, eh? They’re just as bad.
Photobucket Alert ! Nazi Era Jurisprudence , Correction and Rehabilitation as Deconstructed by Independent Film Makers
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/–0DbFyTYqHo/TWvc…
In this screen capture from 1975’s Ilsa: She Wolf of the S.S., buxom thespian Dyanne Thorne is shown, well, being buxom. The interest in films that depict strong, independent women against the backdrop of Nazi Germany is their ordinariness on the one hand and the context of that ordinariness on the other. Like humour, its interest arises out of juxtaposition. On the one hand we see that she’s smiling pleasantly, even enjoying her work until, that is, one notices the Nazi swastika on her cap. Then the picture ceases to be so ordinary.
You sound like the type of parents, OB, who expects their children to live up to some standard you have set for them because YOU want them to live a certain way instead of letting them be their own person.
They’re adults, and you can’t live your life through your children.
I sense your kid doesn’t want you at your wedding because they’re fed up with your bullshit.
As for the kid who ‘won’t get a full time job’… if they’re trying, give them a break: the job market sucks right now. If they’re lazy slobs, then give them an ultimatum and stick to it.
ON DECONSTRUCTING THE CONCEPTUAL FLATNESS OF PHOTOBUCKET ALERTS
RSVP
: Col.. Ivan Sonofabitch – 95 Rifles
Re: “Photobucket Alert!: In this screen capture of 1975’s Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, buxom thespian Dyanne Thorne is shown being, well, buxom.”
As can be seen in the screen capture, Dyanne Thorne, playing the role of Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS, is dressed in a SS uniform. But something is missing here. What is it? That’s right, there is no juxtaposition of contrasting conceptions such as was the case with the stamp of the smiling Nazi mail woman.
In her case the content resided in her cheerful, warm human face but, in contrast, the context was that of the evil, brutish Nazi regime of which she was, albeit in a minor way, an official agent. Put differently, the stamp was “conceptually rich”. By contrast, however, the image of Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS lacked such conceptual richness. She was what she was, the buxom She Wolf of the SS. There was no juxtaposition. Context had been reduced to content with the result that the picture of Ilsa is “conceptually flat”.
It is precisely this conceptual flatness, this absence of any contextualizing dimension, which condemns not just photobucket images like Ilsa to conceptual flatness but also to the photobucket alerts themselves. They are conceptually flat because the images contained in them just appear, just pop up. In other words, they lack meaning. Lacking the juxtaposition of content and context. They have become conceptually lobotomized.
Of course, the further question relates to the minds of those who rummage around in photobuckets in the first place. Are they, like the products of their efforts, similarly lobotomized? But this is a question for another time.
New Avatar Alert: There Will Be no New New Avatar Alerts Until New Bitches Are Posted. I mean, what do you think I am, a mutt?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Montrealman, what focused my attention was that Ms. Thorne was wearing the black uniform of the Allgemeine S.S. which ceased to be worn after 1939, being replaced with the Feldgrau of the German Army. Also, she is wearing the Wehrmachtsadler Hoheitzeichen on her right breast, whereas the S.S. wore their own design of eagle and swastika insignia on the left sleeve. And, while the Totenkopf in her service cap is of S.S. pattern, she is also wearing a pair of Hussar’s Deaths Heads beneath her collar tabs like a pair of misplaced pasties – an egregious costuming error which no amount of gratuitous full frontal nudity can ever hope to forgive.
JUST RANTING (II): A PROLEGOMENA TO THE CONCEPT OF TEACHING VALUES
“It seems I am trying to get back being 100% to please a ‘corporate’ group rather than the people who I taught better values but in the end have disappointed us. I am just ranting.” just ranting
We saw (Montrealman 03/01, 9:08AM) that an attempt was made to answer the question – “How can one teach values?” – turned on the question of what it is that one is teaching. Plumbing, science and mathematics were ruled out since teaching them did not engage the question of human values broadly conceived. We determined that to teach values was a special case of teaching philosophy. But what is it to teach philosophy? To answer this question we must change focus. Instead of focusing on what is taught, we must focus on the activity of teaching itself. So, what is the activity of teaching itself?
Since teaching is necessarily a conscious rational activity – one consciously plans for and intends a certain outcome – we must first engage the question, “What is it to be rational?” To be rational, however, must not be reduced to any form of means-end rationality, i.e., one does X in order to get Y. That is little more than instrumental “rationality”, more a matter of pragmatic cunning than rationality properly conceived. In the same way we must rule out any behaviouristic accounts of teaching (see Wheels, 02/01, 8:59AM). Teaching, to be teaching, involves more than any crude stimulus-response conditioning. So where do we go from here? What we must do is to engage the concept of rationality itself. So what is rationality itself?
Dictionary definitions of rationality, being tautological, are necessarily circular an therefore empty. To say that the rational man is the one who is guided by reasons pre-supposes rather than demonstrates of what such reasons, in order to be reasons, might consist. So there is no formal, non-tautological definition of rationality which, of course, is what makes it philosophically interesting. So where do we go from here?
Some might have noticed that I defined teaching as a “conscious rational activity.” However, we found that “rationality” itself eluded precise formulation. There was no non-tautological definition of rationality. No, what we must do now is to engage the other horn of the dilemma, that of consciousness itself. Teaching, to be teaching properly conceived, must incorporate a coherent concept of human consciousness.
But I have gone on long enough for the moment. Consider this post an introductory comment, a prolegomena if you like, to the concept of teaching values.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVP
: Col. Ivan Sonofabitch – 95th Rifles (03/02, 9:19)
Stop looking at Ms. Thorne’s breasts!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Taught them right? They learned wrong? Who is to blame? Everybody points their finger at the other person. Nobody wants to admit they are wrong, or made a mistake, or are delusional. Of course they are always right, and it’s the other’s fault.
Yours truly
Are you talking to me?
This bitch needed more punctuation especially at the start. When you talk about “getting better”, is that about recovery from your accident or being a better parent? What does marriage being a “piece of paper” have to do with access to your grandchildren?
Ummm… these are YOUR kids… YOU spread your legs, so you get the joy!