The Catholic Message Board

Yes, but the problem you are pointing to is excessive individualism, and frankly, widespread delusional narcissism, combined with an attitude of entitlement.

This is also why companies have difficulty retaining employees; people feel entitled, so they don't think they have to work. People get a job, show up for a few days, then start calling in for no real reason except that they don't want to work. Then, when they run out of sick days, they just do the no-call no-show until they get fired.

The entitlement mentality, when combined with identity politics, makes everything worse. I have people at work say, "I belong to such and such a minority group, therefore I'm going to do X", which is against policy, such as taking an excessively long break, confident that they can get away with it because it would be racist to hold them accountable for their behavior.''

But none of that means that we shouldn't pass laws against self-destructive or harmful behavior. The worst thing we can do is surrender to it by just giving up.


Your objection is similar to the "we need to legalize abortion otherwise people will just go to back alleys", but that is kind of the point, isn't it, to push such a practice to the margins of society so that it comes to be seen as something disreputable.

And this is why we pass laws against prostitution, are we going to stop anybody from it? Of course not, but laws against prostitution make prostitution into something that you have to search for, go to one run-down, disreputable part of the city, and try to disguise yourself so that people won't recognize you, and make you feel a little embarrassed or ashamed if you get caught.

In places like the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, it is also rampant, advertised on TV, in the newspapers, and on the billboards, and no one feels any sense of guilt or shame about it because it is just seen as normal behavior.

It seems that we are observing some of the same phenomena but, based upon different perspectives, drawing different conclusions. My conclusion is that, when a law can be enforced is not enforced, that law is ignored and, at the extreme, held in contempt. By "held in contempt" I mean that those who break it disparage it. Pretty much "I don't need no stinking badges" You seem to advance the idea that a law, though "unenforceable", has merit in its intent. That it serves as a beacon or model or goal for a better outcome. I advance the idea that a law, not enforced, serves as a target to justify a worse outcome. Better no law than one that the society and culture openly disparage. Leading to the practice that, if I decide to ignore one law, why not ignore all?

It also seems that we are also having difficulty dealing with the concepts of "not enforced" and "unenforceable". I hold, more or less, that when a law that can be enforced, isn't, then it is described as unenforceable. The term "unenforceable" has become the olley-olley-oxen-free mechanism where those who don't want to enforce now don't have to. That is not to say that there are "unenforceable" laws. As argued earlier, drunk driving laws are easily enforceable. In Iceland, if one has car keys in one's possession and one has consume alcohol, one is, by law, a drunk driver. Whether or not one is actually in one's car. The consequences are drastic and the society doesn't care about the drunk driver's inconvenience. Iceland has no drunk driving problem. In the US, the body politic and the broader culture have decided to claim the virtue of having DUI laws while actively and openly ignoring them.

On retaining employees. My information comes from federal employees, teachers (also government employees), nurses, and call centers. In each case, the current phenomenon is that new employees will sign up for a formal set of conditions of employment and then, immediately, demand that they be negotiable -- or voided by the individual's "needs". The most cited are: (1) I can't work nights or weekends, (2) I can't get to work at the time my shift starts and I have to leave early, and, the most cited, (3) I have to (fill in the blank) because I have to take care of my child. The magical word used is not abracadabra, it is accommodation. As in, "You are legally required to reasonably accommodate my needs and I get to decide what is reasonable"; another way of saying "The employer is required to pay me on my terms." After ignoring or skirting the conditions of employment and going through the laborious firing process (aided, it is reported, by HR which constantly asks some reasonable accommodation be allowed to satisfy the employee and make the issue go away), the employee is fired. Or, more likely, resigns.

During this drama, round here, the race card is sometimes played at the time of termination; the woman card is played constantly. In a hospital emergency room, the head charge nurse finally hired only lesbians -- they were the only ones who consistently met the conditions of employment. As soon as the "plucky single mother who worked her way through nursing school" card was laid on the table, experience was that, if hired, the applicant would immediately challenge the conditions of employment and demand her version of reasonable accommodation.

My experiences with government employees were that they are very good or very poor. No normal curve, very bimodal. For the poor employee, conditions of employment were sorta suggestions that the employee could decide whether to observe ... or not.

Conditions of employment are, in effect, laws. When enforced, they work and work is done. When not enforced, work becomes an individual option. The employee who chooses to ignore them often voices his opinion that his nonobservance is (1) not hurting his overall performance, (2) is based upon his superior ability to decide the conditions under which work should be performed, and (3) the conditions are stupid and counterproductive.

My experience with abortion and prostitution is indirect, at best. My experience with traffic and vehicles and vehicle operators is very direct and daily.

Recently, I have been interested in the social culture of the US in the 1920's and '30's. It seems that abortion, illegal in all aspects, was often, if not universally, available to middle class and affluent women. That is not the myth. although the myth was somewhat true. There were dangerous abortionists and dangerous circumstances. More than today. Socially tolerated abortion was safe by the standards of the medical practice of the time. Medical, legal, and social culture colluded to see that the pregnant woman would suffer minimal inconvenience. There was talk and social gossip, but no legal consequence. The poor and some rural suffered most. The law didn't matter; the convenience of the pregnant woman and cultural structures overrode it. Breaking abortions laws was concealed, but commonplace. The law was enforceable, but not enforced.

Prostitution is another matter ... complex. Laws exist, but are seldom enforced. The issues has been complicated by human trafficking, illegal immigration, feminism, drug establishments, female promiscuity, unemployed women living beyond their means, and a tolerance that perhaps did not exist openly three decades ago. The society seems to accept prostitution as long as it isn't on my street. I think that rewriting the laws to hold the customer to blame and the prostitute blameless ... even a victim eligible for various forms of welfare ,,, are an interesting development. A new career path of sex worker has emerged. In addition, the legal definition of prostitution seems to have both clouded and narrowed. The exchange of sexual services for material benefit as a crime seems to be difficult to define. I know people whose daughters, employed by large companies, accompanied their boss on an overseas trip. It was clear that the woman was expected to and provided sexual access during the trip. The parents claimed that the daughters were blameless and victimized. Was that prostitution or was that true love? Was it illegal or was it ill advised? Was a good time had by all? Pending a clearer definition of prostitution, I might have to agree that laws against it are unenforceable. Because we don't know what it is anymore.
Ah, the triumph of feminism.

I conclude this tome by saying it has been an enjoyable exchange over some not so enjoyable topics. Thank for the civil and respectful interchange; it has been quite unlike almost all other discourse on the internet.

YOUR A COMPLETE IDOIT!!!!!1!

I didn't want you to get spoiled.

In terms of enforcement, BTW, some schools require phones to be turned in when the student arrives. Granted there are probably some with a backup holdout phone, but this gets most of them out of play.

DW had been interested in this topic and was somewhat familiar with it. Her observation was that, in public schools, phone storage might work in the middle demographic, but would be difficult to implement in the upper and lower demographic. The upper and lower demographic would resist a barrier between direct communication with their child. She also asked how a school would handle smart watches .... which can send and receive voice and text. And, as pointed out, backup phones. Then she addressed the administrative burden.

In schools where storage of phones during the school day has worked, she said that a storage area is provided where each student has a small, phone sized locker. The locker has a coded door where, at days beginning each student places their phone, and at day's end, the student retrieves their phone. Her middle school had about 470 students, so congestion, friction, and delays in the storage area would be significant. Determining whether the student actually stored the phone is another issue. She opined that a system where each student handed in a phone to a human who was responsible for storage, accountability, and distribution each day is unworkable.

The administration of the phone vault is largely in the hands of teachers, as the front office staff, if available, is insufficient for the task. Each student has a code for their locker and an assigned teacher also has the code. However, phone storage lockers can also be in the individual classrooms ... homerooms, if that term is still used. In that case, the homeroom teacher is completely responsible for administering the phone storage program. So each teacher would have to deal with students interrupting class to obtain or store their phone and they arrive and leave the school outside of the normal arrival and departure hours.

She added finances and space. How much would the program cost, where would the lockers (in a vault or in each classroom) be placed, how long would it take to acquire and install the lockers, how would maintenance be provided if a locker malfunctioned or was damaged? Commonly, there are more students in a classroom than planned. Leading to things like students without desks, so how would a teacher handle two or three or four students without an individual phone locker?

After discussion, she opined that with 2-3 years of educating the school body, a phone storage system might be workable -- for the middle demographic. For the others it would be a continuous battle. And, finally, it would be yet another great idea developed by others and foisted upon the classroom teachers to manage.

Your world, of course, might be different.

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:08 pm YOUR A COMPLETE IDOIT!!!!!1!

I didn't want you to get spoiled.

Spoilt? You are just agreeing with everyone I know. And meet. But they take the time to make a judgement. On the internet you often get judgement without data.

Withdrawn for duplication.

Highlander wrote: ↑Mon Dec 15, 2025 10:35 pm DW had been interested in this topic and was somewhat familiar with it. Her observation was that, in public schools, phone storage might work in the middle demographic, but would be difficult to implement in the upper and lower demographic. The upper and lower demographic would resist a barrier between direct communication with their child. She also asked how a school would handle smart watches .... which can send and receive voice and text. And, as pointed out, backup phones. Then she addressed the administrative burden.

In schools where storage of phones during the school day has worked, she said that a storage area is provided where each student has a small, phone sized locker. The locker has a coded door where, at days beginning each student places their phone, and at day's end, the student retrieves their phone. Her middle school had about 470 students, so congestion, friction, and delays in the storage area would be significant. Determining whether the student actually stored the phone is another issue. She opined that a system where each student handed in a phone to a human who was responsible for storage, accountability, and distribution each day is unworkable.

The administration of the phone vault is largely in the hands of teachers, as the front office staff, if available, is insufficient for the task. Each student has a code for their locker and an assigned teacher also has the code. However, phone storage lockers can also be in the individual classrooms ... homerooms, if that term is still used. In that case, the homeroom teacher is completely responsible for administering the phone storage program. So each teacher would have to deal with students interrupting class to obtain or store their phone and they arrive and leave the school outside of the normal arrival and departure hours.

She added finances and space. How much would the program cost, where would the lockers (in a vault or in each classroom) be placed, how long would it take to acquire and install the lockers, how would maintenance be provided if a locker malfunctioned or was damaged? Commonly, there are more students in a classroom than planned. Leading to things like students without desks, so how would a teacher handle two or three or four students without an individual phone locker?

After discussion, she opined that with 2-3 years of educating the school body, a phone storage system might be workable -- for the middle demographic. For the others it would be a continuous battle. And, finally, it would be yet another great idea developed by others and foisted upon the classroom teachers to manage.

Your world, of course, might be different.

As far as banning phones during school hours in Australia, it's pretty much a resounding success. My own kids went through high school between 2004 and 2012 during the first phases of the bans and I never heard of it being an issue. Earlier this year that experience was confirmed by the research.

https://ministers.education.gov.au/clar ... ng-reforms

So far, the anecdotal reports regarding the social media ban are positive. Most parents have seen the negative effects of social media in their children's lives and look forward to how this ban will improve things.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... nteractive

OK, I give. Y'all are reporting resounding success. I am skeptical that the reporting reflects reality. My in-the-classroom input from an average local public middle school is that, in spite of a ban, use continued.

I repeat...you must live in a different world.

P.S. For my own satisfaction, I just conducted an extensive AI search directed at the banning of mobile phone use in schools around the world. In particular, I asked about concealed use and about bias and methodology validity in studies which evaluated the impact of banning mobile phone use. I'm not gonna report the results, as they are detailed and massive, but, if you're interested, you can do the same. One interpretation is that everybody who has weighed in on the topic here is correct.

They've banned them here in my area of NY. I don't have any first (or even second) hand experience. What I do have is my own attitude. Having gone to Catholic grade school, I can tell you that you have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on a Pre-Vat II nun. So, I can tell you that in public h. s., a ban would not have stopped me. There are always ways to get around something like that.

DW pshawed at the idea that smart phone use is not common with adolescents in places where it is banned. Her statement was that the youth are significantly more tech savvy than the adults who think they have things under control. As it is an interest of hers, she informed me that other areas in which adolescents have the upper hand are negating in room, door, house,and yard cameras, alarm systems, and various recording and transmitting systems and devices. They also create tech savvy, cooperative social networks that create a synergy amplifying the capability of a single little devil.

Parental counter measures include turning off home internet access at night and confiscating and locking up phones at night and other times. Adolescent counter-counter measures include routing various communication channels through desktop and laptop computers for use while "doing homework". Were I a parent of such highly motivated and intelligent children, without a lick of common sense, I would look into jamming devices with a radius that covered my house but not the neighbors'.

But we live in different worlds.

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 3:44 am [Y]ou have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on a Pre-Vat II nun.

They still exist?

Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 1:39 am I'm not gonna report the results, as they are detailed and massive, but, if you're interested, you can do the same.

Can you provide a link for those of us - okay, me - who are just too lazy to do it thems - er - myself?

Riverboat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 2:15 pm

anawim wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 3:44 am [Y]ou have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on a Pre-Vat II nun.

They still exist?

No. I'm just that old.

Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 11:03 am DW pshawed at the idea that smart phone use is not common with adolescents in places where it is banned. Her statement was that the youth are significantly more tech savvy than the adults who think they have things under control. As it is an interest of hers, she informed me that other areas in which adolescents have the upper hand are negating in room, door, house,and yard cameras, alarm systems, and various recording and transmitting systems and devices. They also create tech savvy, cooperative social networks that create a synergy amplifying the capability of a single little devil.

To quote a teacher: "No one looks down at their crotch and smiles unless they've got a phone down there."

Riverboat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 2:21 pm

Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 1:39 am I'm not gonna report the results, as they are detailed and massive, but, if you're interested, you can do the same.

Can you provide a link for those of us - okay, me - who are just too lazy to do it thems - er - myself?

No link. Go to Chat GPT, an AI, and ask it something like:

Provide me a review and evaluation of the impact of cell phone bans in K-12 schools worldwide. Include the extent of cells phone use being concealed and methods student use to access cell phones when banned. Also provide an evaluation of any confirmation bias in the reports of the effectiveness of cell phone bans and of weaknesses in the methodology used to gather, analyze, and report data on the effectiveness of bans on cell phone use. Distinguish results ranging from simple prohibition of cell phone use to actual impounding or gathering of cell phones from students in those schools.

After the results the AI will suggest other related queries that it can provide. The iterations of query, answers, suggested queries, additional queries , additional answers, additional suggestion ... can go on forever.

Highlander wrote: ↑Tue Dec 16, 2025 11:51 pm Go to Chat GPT, an AI, and ask it something like . . .

Thanks for the tip. I refuse to talk to machines other than to leave a message. I'm just cranky that way.