Mollycoddled 'Snowflake children' warns head teacher
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
Vocal Minority said:
Shhhhhh - don't say that.
This is PH and it is meant to be about how modern youth are total s
t and how we were all self sufficient and bad ass we all were aged 8.
Read the post above yours.This is PH and it is meant to be about how modern youth are total s
t and how we were all self sufficient and bad ass we all were aged 8.And fuelled by the kids are all useless (they're not) and we were all bad asses (we weren't) mantra so common on PH.
WolfieBot said:
Fair points. But why does it have to be seen as a bad thing that people are waiting until 25 to learn to drive instead of 17?
If anything that seems like a good thing, especially when you listen to the stories of past generations about drink driving. Wait until all the nights out and boozing is out of the system.
Same with house buying, people are working until they're 67 now, what's the harm in waiting until your 30s to buy a house? Owning a house isn't the be all and end all for everyone.
(Full disclosure... I'm 30, passed my test age 17, went to uni at 18, relocated on my own after uni, bought first house at 26.
)
Do you really think young adults are delaying taking their driving test till 25 because they're waiting until all the nights out and boozing is out of their system? If anything that seems like a good thing, especially when you listen to the stories of past generations about drink driving. Wait until all the nights out and boozing is out of the system.
Same with house buying, people are working until they're 67 now, what's the harm in waiting until your 30s to buy a house? Owning a house isn't the be all and end all for everyone.
(Full disclosure... I'm 30, passed my test age 17, went to uni at 18, relocated on my own after uni, bought first house at 26.
)Why not learn to drive anyway, but then not drive when having late nights and boozing..?
In any case, if they were all waiting till 25 and then taking it, wouldn't the test numbers be the same because the reduction in 17 year olds would be matched by the increase in 25 year olds?
Hayek said:
Bradgate said:
There has been massive social change to the lives of teenagers since I was one.
Back in the mid-80s university was for the brightest (or most privileged) 20%, and the vast majority of 16-21 year olds had left school and were working for a living. Some had jobs, some were doing trade apprenticeships, some were on training schemes, some were combining work with college. They were not yet fully financially independent of their parents, but they were effectively young adults.
In 2018, it’s completely different. Today’s 16-21 year olds are younger for far longer. They are still in full time education, they are completely financially dependent on their parents. They are effectively still children, so we shouldn’t be surprised when they behave as such.
And yet many want to lower the voting age! Back in the mid-80s university was for the brightest (or most privileged) 20%, and the vast majority of 16-21 year olds had left school and were working for a living. Some had jobs, some were doing trade apprenticeships, some were on training schemes, some were combining work with college. They were not yet fully financially independent of their parents, but they were effectively young adults.
In 2018, it’s completely different. Today’s 16-21 year olds are younger for far longer. They are still in full time education, they are completely financially dependent on their parents. They are effectively still children, so we shouldn’t be surprised when they behave as such.
Ari said:
WolfieBot said:
Fair points. But why does it have to be seen as a bad thing that people are waiting until 25 to learn to drive instead of 17?
If anything that seems like a good thing, especially when you listen to the stories of past generations about drink driving. Wait until all the nights out and boozing is out of the system.
Same with house buying, people are working until they're 67 now, what's the harm in waiting until your 30s to buy a house? Owning a house isn't the be all and end all for everyone.
(Full disclosure... I'm 30, passed my test age 17, went to uni at 18, relocated on my own after uni, bought first house at 26.)
Do you really think young adults are delaying taking their driving test till 25 because they're waiting until all the nights out and boozing is out of their system? If anything that seems like a good thing, especially when you listen to the stories of past generations about drink driving. Wait until all the nights out and boozing is out of the system.
Same with house buying, people are working until they're 67 now, what's the harm in waiting until your 30s to buy a house? Owning a house isn't the be all and end all for everyone.
(Full disclosure... I'm 30, passed my test age 17, went to uni at 18, relocated on my own after uni, bought first house at 26.
)Why not learn to drive anyway, but then not drive when having late nights and boozing..?
In any case, if they were all waiting till 25 and then taking it, wouldn't the test numbers be the same because the reduction in 17 year olds would be matched by the increase in 25 year olds?
The reason they're doing it later is more likely due to the increasing cost driving, the decreasing fun factor associated with driving.
Add to this the increase of people going to university, there's less need for a car when at uni so people are waiting until they've finished.
Why spend hundreds / thousands learning at 17 if you're not going to buy a car until your 24-25?
speedchick said:
Me and my husband were having a conversation similar to this the other week, and I said that if there was a catastrophic event, loads of people died and we lost most things, like electricity, internet etc, then the under 20s would last about 3 days (and that was being generous). Without Google, they just simply don't have a clue. I'm surprised some of them have actually mastered breathing on their own to be honest!
But you and the husband would be just fine eh . If push came to shove i assure you the under 20's would rip though any old survivors still floating about with ease . Vocal Minority said:
Rovinghawk said:
Vocal Minority said:
Shhhhhh - don't say that.
This is PH and it is meant to be about how modern youth are total st and how we were all self sufficient and bad ass we all were aged 8.
Read the post above yours.This is PH and it is meant to be about how modern youth are total s
t and how we were all self sufficient and bad ass we all were aged 8.And fuelled by the kids are all useless (they're not) and we were all bad asses (we weren't) mantra so common on PH.
superkartracer said:
speedchick said:
Me and my husband were having a conversation similar to this the other week, and I said that if there was a catastrophic event, loads of people died and we lost most things, like electricity, internet etc, then the under 20s would last about 3 days (and that was being generous). Without Google, they just simply don't have a clue. I'm surprised some of them have actually mastered breathing on their own to be honest!
But you and the husband would be just fine eh . If push came to shove i assure you the under 20's would rip though any old survivors still floating about with ease . 
Necessity is the mother of invention, and I don't for a minute think that the kids of today in general are entirely bereft of nous, I'm sure they'd figure things out if they had to.
We are all to some extent sitting on top of a vast technological pyramid and although we can vaguely see the base, the mid-section is entirely invisible to all but the most specialised fields and then only in small portion; fundamentally we'd all be a little bit f
ked if the intricate web of interdependence were to break down. superkartracer said:
Looking at my son and his mates ( 17 ) who are covering A levels ( core ) , learning to drive , have girlfriends , getting pissed/having fun and about to head to uni to become Professionals ( med/law/IT etc etc ) , i'd say the youth are far from useless and would certainly make me and my mates look rather stupid back in the 90's! .
I blame the parents.... 
jjlynn27 said:
Yes, shocking that they refused to go on a trip with you.
I really doubt that you speak for anyone with IQ higher than their shoe size.
I realise you are trying very hard to be the resident idiot, hard when there are so many like you but give it break or we will give you one as a free gift.I really doubt that you speak for anyone with IQ higher than their shoe size.
In fact, sod it. Enjoy your break.
FourWheelDrift said:
jjlynn27 said:
Yes, shocking that they refused to go on a trip with you.
I really doubt that you speak for anyone with IQ higher than their shoe size.
I realise you are trying very hard to be the resident idiot, hard when there are so many like you but give it break or we will give you one as a free gift.I really doubt that you speak for anyone with IQ higher than their shoe size.
In fact, sod it. Enjoy your break.
speedchick said:
Me and my husband were having a conversation similar to this the other week, and I said that if there was a catastrophic event, loads of people died and we lost most things, like electricity, internet etc, then the under 20s would last about 3 days (and that was being generous). Without Google, they just simply don't have a clue. I'm surprised some of them have actually mastered breathing on their own to be honest!
A big statement from a generation who haven't mastered "Turn the Router off and on again" .
croyde said:
My parents split soon after and my mum couldn't afford a colour TV licence so the rental telly had to go and my little portable became the main telly.
It was still working in the late 90s and I lent it to a girl I fancied at work.
She pissed off with it to Germany. Never saw it again.
I'm off to Germany this week. I wonder if it's still going.
If she kept active and ate healthy, she probably still isIt was still working in the late 90s and I lent it to a girl I fancied at work.
She pissed off with it to Germany. Never saw it again.
I'm off to Germany this week. I wonder if it's still going.
Rovinghawk said:
A while back I went to the 'Ring. When I offered a couple of teens the chance to come with I heard "No point- I've driven it on a Playstation and can do it faster than you'll manage".
No concept of the real world, its risks & rewards.
I enjoy driving fast. However I would find it quite boring to be driven around the ‘Ring by another amateur especially somebody I didnt know well. The risks are “being involved in a massive accident”. The rewards are “watching somebody else showing off how good he (thinks) he is”. Bit of a no-brainier really....No concept of the real world, its risks & rewards.
Tankrizzo said:
FourWheelDrift said:
I realise you are trying very hard to be the resident idiot, hard when there are so many like you but give it break or we will give you one as a free gift.
In fact, sod it. Enjoy your break.
Splendid. About bloody time.In fact, sod it. Enjoy your break.
Countdown said:
I enjoy driving fast. However I would find it quite boring to be driven around the ‘Ring by another amateur especially somebody I didnt know well. The risks are “being involved in a massive accident”. The rewards are “watching somebody else showing off how good he (thinks) he is”. Bit of a no-brainier really....
Personally I'd have still wanted to go - after all it's still a trip to the Ring. I've done countless video game laps but I have no desire whatsoever to do the real thing as unless I had some kind of flawless insurance cover and the entire track to myself - in my advancing years I've become much more risk averse. However I'd quite like to go and watch from the sidelines, look at some cool cars in the car park, go and sit in a bar and drink German beer. WolfieBot said:
No, I don't think that's the reason. I just said it's not necessarily a bad thing that kids aren't driving and drinking at the same time like was so prolific in previous generations.
The reason they're doing it later is more likely due to the increasing cost driving, the decreasing fun factor associated with driving.
Add to this the increase of people going to university, there's less need for a car when at uni so people are waiting until they've finished.
Why spend hundreds / thousands learning at 17 if you're not going to buy a car until your 24-25?
Or why bother when mummy and daddy will drive you everywhere you want to go?The reason they're doing it later is more likely due to the increasing cost driving, the decreasing fun factor associated with driving.
Add to this the increase of people going to university, there's less need for a car when at uni so people are waiting until they've finished.
Why spend hundreds / thousands learning at 17 if you're not going to buy a car until your 24-25?
My daughter, despite having had 20 driving lessons, has no interest in taking her test and getting a car - partly because she's at university and doesn't need a car, but also because my wife will still turn out at 1am to pick her up from pretty much anywhere. I think this is mollycoddling, but my protests fall on deaf ears.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff