If I don't like you, if you are making me mad, I should be able to say it. If I don't like what you say, I should do something about it. What the schools teach their kids today is to not do anything when someone picks on you. Imagine these kids growing up to be a bunch of peace lovin hippies who actually practice what they were taught. These schools basically teach that if a plane flies into your tower because terrorists wanted to kill people, they should just calm down and not do anything about it. What they should do is kill the terrorists. I tend to say that if someone slaps you, you should punch them in the throat and break their legs. They will not slap you again. I simply say, do not instigate, but fight the instigator back.
I think a child should be able to speak their mind, as long as it is done without violence or disrespect. Children are not little politicians, and they should not be told what to say. Their little minds can't grasp how to be diplomatic and adults make to big a deal about being political correct. I think that is what causes so much discourse with our children.
I i i ii i i i i ii i i i ii i i i i ii i i i ii i i i ii i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i i i i
Apparently some people think political correctness, aka respect and decency, is a bad thing. If we teach our children to be cooperative and kind to each other, and express their opinions respectfully and with due consideration of the feelings of others, they will grow up to be nice people! That anyone can possibly see this as a bad thing (and rationalizing such twisted thinking using straw man comparisons to hippies and dramatic invocations of the 9/11 attacks) is the real tragedy here. If people in our generation can view diplomatic education for children in such a debased manner, it shows if anything we need more diplomatic education in schools to purge the next generation of the warmongering conflict inciting propaganda parents are impressing upon their children.
Diplomacy is absolutely necessary for people of every age to communicate effectively and civily. If anything, to foster good communication skills, it is important for children to learn diplomacy early on, so good communication habits become I'm bedded in their character; that way, they can learn to express their ideas and get what they want through the agreement and approval of others rather than through force, harassment, and intimidation.
The world is filled with war and conflict, and there is no worse way to deal with violence, coercion, and intimidation, than to participate in it oneself. As another debater noted, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Violence begets violence, force begets force, conflict begets conflict. The only way to bring peace to the world is by leading by example, resolving problems in a peaceful, diplomatic manner, and expressing one's opinions respectfully and reasonably. To reduce conflict and war in the world, we need more diplomacy education in schools.
Finally, responding to my opponents claim that children can't comprehend diplomacy, and aren't capable of consciously engaging in diplomatic behavior ("their little minds can't grasp how to be diplomatic", this is not only a spurious claim, but contradicted by the evidence. Numerous studies show that children regularly filter their words to avoid negative reactions or to garner praise. Diplomacy is a skill that children are innately capable of even from a young age, and if we take the time and effort to develop our children's diplomatic skills, they will benefit considerably from it for years to come. Diplomacy is a powerful tool empowering people of every age to get what they want in ways that are acceptable to others, and/or by means that are mutually beneficial to the involved parties!
Honestly, I do not even remember learning much about being diplomatic from school, but if they are teaching it in schools I see nothing wrong with it. Diplomacy does not mean that you can not speak your mind, it just means that you must make sure to be polite while doing so in order not to create a hostile environment. That does not sound like a bad thing to me.
To begin i'd like to note that Cowboy0108's definition of diplomacy is entirely incorrect. The closest definition of "Diplomacy" that I have found to the topic which Cowboy wishes to discuss comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary in which diplomacy is a "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility". In other words, diplomacy is taking care of our problems through non-hostile means, not just ignoring our problems. The topic which Cowboy wishes to discuss is better described as christian non-hostility as biblically defined in "the Sermon on the Mount". It is here that Jesus is recorded as saying "You have heard that they were told, 'An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist injury, but if anyone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other cheek to him too; and if anyone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat too; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two miles with him. If anyone begs from you, give to him, and when anyone wants to borrow from you, do not turn away."
Now I believe that while Jesus' non-hostility stance is incredibly noble, Cowboy and others like him could argue against the reasonability and reality of such teachings in favor of the more sustainable "Golden Rule" teachings. But regardless of wether it is better to teach non-hostility or proportional and civil hostility, neither is defined as "Diplomacy".
Cowboy, if you want to have an honest discussion of the topic you seem to discuss in your post, I suggest you change the title of the debate. This has nothing to do with diplomacy.