By the age of 14 you are supposed to have a developed enough sense of morality to understand that this is very bad. I don't think this is an acceptable excuse.
Who are these mythical 14 year old boys that are supposed to have developed 'enough' of a sense of morality? To paraphrase The Virgin Suicides: obviously Dr., you never were a 14 year old boy.
I was one of those mythical 14-year-old boys that knew better than to spy on girls by hacking their webcam. I don't know why so many people assume that boys are stupid at age 14 but I can assure that is not the case in general.
That's just a stupid Americanism.[1] You don't need to do a bunch of wrong things to learn what's wrong. You learn what's right and wrong because your parents tell you what's right and wrong, and society and school socializes you to teach you what's right and wrong. If you get to 14 and need to scare someone like this to learn what's right and wrong, you're either defective or your parents and teachers have failed at their jobs. More likely, you know it's wrong and you just don't care.
[1] I'm an American and love America, but we elevate apologizing for bad things kids do (because we don't have the stomach to properly discipline them) to an art form.
"we elevate apologizing for bad things kids do (because we don't have the stomach to properly discipline them) to an art form."
Conversely, the US seems fond of trying kids as adults when they cross some or other threshold of crime. As an outside observer it seems an odd contradiction.
This might be somewhat ranty and unprofessional, but I have to say it
You learn what's wrong from your parents, and your teachers, and society. I'd like to disagree with you on that point. Yes, you get ideas passed down to your by others, but if you do not bother to examine them and act blindly on the premise that these things must be right, because others told you, without putting any deliberation into the truth of these moral dictates, then...how to get this across without seeming as angry and ranty as I am? Because things like this viscerally disgust me. My parent taught me they didn't care (or couldn't), my school taught me I was in the wrong place, and my peers taught me that I was scum. And I didn't act on those morals, or I wouldn't be writing this paragraph, nor living, nor breathing. Of course, this didn't last forever. I recovered, and I learned how to deal with people. But what you just said, that I...I was defective for not leaving a place that obviously didn't welcome me, the implication that I should have crossed hades, that's worse than telling me to "go die", because you said it with moral righteousness.
Now I know you're talking about 14 year olds that spy on girls, and I don't think that's morally right either, but your explanation of why it isn't, it's just...wrong somehow.
Firstof, they're not defective. Don't even say a child is broken. Misunderstood? Maybe. Misled? Maybe. But not broken nor defective nor hopeless. Because when you take a child, filled with expectations and hope, trying to make sense of the things that happen in the world, and you tell them they're broken, you're killing them. Yes, some might recover from it, just as someone shot might survive, but you and I agree that shooting a kid is still a pretty bad thing to do, no matter whether they survive or not, right? So don't do it.
Ok, so after I've vented some of my anger, and proably shared way to personal details with everyone on here, back to business. Society is a pretty bad measuring stick for morals. Define the "average morals" to be the reference point, and Schindler becomes the most amoral man in the third reich. You see how this averaging is a pretty bad idea, right? Ok. Then to the disciplining thing. There's a difference between teaching something to your kids, and threatening them to do something. Teaching leads to moral understanding and a moral code. Threats will only teach that might is right, and the only thing holding together morals is violence. I think this worldview does point towards why religious people often ask atheist why they don't think the world will collapse into anarchy without the concept of a hell. Because hell is violence as the foundation of morals. If you want to affect any of those kids, go out and teach them why it's wrong instead of threatening to hit them if they do it again.
TL;DR: As a past victim of social ostracism, post makes me angry. Average morals are a bad idea. Disciplining kids will lead to obedience from threat, not to morals. Teaching will. So go teach
I can tell there's a lot of thought and a lot of emotion behind that, I just wanted to say one thing - discipline, as instilled by parents or whoever else, doesn't have to come at the point of force.
And if a child is 14 years old and pulling the stuff mentioned in the article, I'm sorry but they are defective. Maybe the sort of defective that can be fixed, but they are committing actual heinous crimes against other people. These are not the actions of kids filled with expectation and hope, these are the actions of little psychopaths with no empathy, and they need to be stopped.
When you subtract the technological component, these things become bad pranks. My fathers generation used to search paper bins for porn and spy on the girls locker room, and these kids are scaping your laptop for porn and spy on girls through their webcams. Whilst I get that these things are slightly different, using technology as an excuse to blow an action all our of proportion is not a wise thing to do. We honestly should know that because we work with technology. See, a murder is a murder whether it was done with bare hands or with a guided rocket. Theft is theft, whether it is through snatching your wallet or hacking your bank data. So when kids do things they used to do in very similar ways the did in the past, with the only variable changing being technology, it'd be foolish to call them heinous criminals, or psychopaths with no empathy.
At least that's my stand on the issue.
Recording audio and video of people in their homes and then sharing it over the net, using it as leverage to get the victims to do things, harassing them in their homes...
This in no way equivalent to sneaking a look into the girl's locker rooms or rummaging through a bin for discarded porn! It's harassment, it's invasion of privacy and it's downright evil. That's before we even get into computer hacking.
You're right the tools don't matter in the slightest, but you completely miss the scale of the crimes. To throw it back at you - just because these kids are sat behind their computers at home doesn't make it any less heinous, or lessen the effects on the victims.
> I'd like to disagree with you on that point. Yes, you get ideas passed down to your by others, but if you do not bother to examine them and act blindly on the premise that these things must be right, because others told you, without putting any deliberation into the truth of these moral dictates...
Statistically speaking, as a 14 year old you're not going to come to any earth shattering conclusions in morality that your parents, society, school, teachers, etc, have overlooked. Critical examination is an important life skill, but so is accepting that adults have a lot of insight into the world that you don't, and that society can teach you a lot without your having to learn things the hard way.
> My parent taught me they didn't care (or couldn't), my school taught me I was in the wrong place, and my peers taught me that I was scum.
Nothing about what I said is meant to assert that parents, teachers, etc, always say or do the right things. I'm necessarily speaking in generalities. I don't think your average teenager doing this kind of thing can raise the defense that their parents and teachers didn't teach them right from wrong. Some parents are terrible at being parents, and don't love and support their kids while also teaching them. But we're speaking in generalities here.
> Firstof, they're not defective. Don't even say a child is broken
A 14 year old is not a child. Not fully an adult, but not a child either. Respecting peoples' privacy should be well within the wheelhouse of your average teenager. And some people are broken. There is a bell curve of ability to function in society, and some people are X number of standard deviations away from the mean in a wrong way. It's unfortunate, but there is no point in not calling a spade a spade.
> Society is a pretty bad measuring stick for morals.
On average, society is a pretty good measuring stick for morals. There's all sorts of things you shouldn't do, that people don't do, because society tells them not to. There is a difference between blindingly accepting things like racisim, because in some contexts it is socially accepted, and acknowledging that even that same society still teaches you not to kick animals or kick little girls in the shins. Contemporary social understanding is a great starting point for your own moral framework, and one which you should lean on more heavily as a child and a teenager until your rationality and experience develop sufficiently to better analyze the world around you.
> Then to the disciplining thing. There's a difference between teaching something to your kids, and threatening them to do something.
Children are not adults. They are not capable of the rational thought of adults. They can be taught, but they cannot always be taught.
Right now, my 3 month old doesn't realize that I continue to exist when she can't see me. From 3 months to 3 years to 13 years, children and teenagers are still partially formed, their faculties of reason not fully in place. Your toddler isn't going to understand your reasoning with her, and while your teenager will usually do so, at the end of the day, sometimes the only thing they will understand is punishment.
> I don't think your average teenager doing this kind of thing can raise the defense that their parents and teachers didn't teach them right from wrong.
You are talking not about the "average teenager" but about the "average teenager doing this kind of thing", yes?
One is a very tiny fraction of the other.
I think, looking at the tiny fraction, it is way more likely that (lack of) guidance by the parents/teachers/society is to blame than the kid being inherently "bad".
Especially since kids with developmental problems, that maybe have trouble developing their own moral compass, can still be raised with proper values, given the right environment. The converse (bad environment+neurotypical kid) however, is very likely to result in bad behaviour.
edit I am NOT trying to excuse any of this behaviour btw. Just saying that environment is a huge factor. And speaking from just over a year's experience teaching kids (computer stuff) roughly this age (a bit younger, 8-12 usually), quite a few of them have impressively well-developed moral compasses :) And the ones that are a bit more .. rowdy, I meet most of their parents at the end of the day, and I do notice some "patterns" (it's none of my business of course and I try to not judge, but little things like some make their kids thank me for helping them this afternoon--absolutely unnecessary for me of course, but it's still a signifier for caring about their upbringing and manners, etc)
