Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pixelslave
In order to become an adult, one must first be a child. One's experiences as a child greatly influence their attitudes and adjustment into adulthood, making it the most critical part of their lives (both in my opinion and in the the opinion of countless professionals).
Sure it's a critical part of their lives. But there's a long way from "influence the parents don't like" to "damaging the kid". As I said, if we regulate what kids are exposed to in general society too much, we get blank slates, not individuals.
And there is no point in having kids if they can't have adulthood and the attendant freedom of choices. Childhood is a stage. Adulthood is a goal.
quote:
It's where they develop their coping skills, their social skills, their ability to reason, sense of security, self esteem, and many other aspects of their personality.
All of these are developed continously, although childhood has a significant impact. I would say the sense of security is the most important part here, and the one that society should aid in bolstering. But adapting society too far is doing them no favours; teaching them to live a lie is not helpful.
quote:
To say that childhood is no more or no less important than any other phase of a person's life is clearly not consistent with what we know about it! 
There's a lot of argument back and forth about that. I'm not digging up references, as my point isn't related to the kids themselves, just related to a simple fact: the kids are someone else's responsibility. Whatever pampering, lies and illusions their parents may decide they want to swaddle them in is something I don't know, can't know and wouldn't want to know if I could.
It's not my job to lie for them. Society as it is for adults is the truth; whatever window-dressing we add for the kids are lies.
quote:
That is very benevolent of you to show children the same consideration as you do dogs.
I think so, too. 
quote:
You are correct in your implication however that up to a certain age, developmentally, children are incapable of reasoning for themselves any better than a pet and also totally agree that you are absolutely correct, that it is their parent's responsibilty to keep track of them. 
Basically, most of the development of a child parallells that of most other mammals. The only significant differences are: (a) the human child levels off later as they have greater developmental potential in some areas, or sooner in some areas where they don't have as much potential, generally sensorimotor skills; (b) human children have vocal cords and everything they need to articulate detailed speech with them, so can acquire a fairly extensive communication ability by the time they become adults; (c) a human child will, baring deformities or accidents, have opposable thumbs.
Apart from these things, which only gradually become relevant, they are as animals. No surprise there, we're a few hundred thousand years along from the other great apes, so it wouldn't make any sense for children to be more advanced.
I'm glad we agree that the parents are the ones who should keep track of their own kids and deal with their upbringing. It's their choice, and their kids, after all. If everyone did keep track of their own kids, it would be better for both the children and the adults.
If I'm going to be made responsible for any part in rearing someone else's children, I'm going to take part in the decision-making, and do that as I would consider responsible, of course, which would mean rearing them at odds with how society in general, and their parents in particular, would probably prefer see them reared.
quote:
In an "adults only" venue, I'd agree. In a general public envrionment, I have to strongly disagree.
Why should adults be confined to "adults only" venues? Isn't it just as reasonable to have children confined to "children only" venues? Besides, it's a simple matter of not lying to the kids. Any argument that comes down to there being kids around is false, alternately deceitful to the kids. It's really about the parents, and how they want to somehow have their kids living in an imaginary world.
However, humans have been living in the (sometimes harsh) real world since before we had the means to clothe ourselves or make fire, let alone construct cities and argue the ethics of our own lifestyles. We can deal with the real world. So can kids. Don't sell them short.
quote:
No one has total control of their environment when in public, so it is unreasonable of you to put it on parents to be responsible for all of what their children are exposed to when in public.
No. The parents choose what comfortable/convenient "white lies" (and not-so-"white" lies) to tell their children. It's their responsibility to cash that check, not mine. I don't have to cover for them.
The only way to maintain a lie is to prevent exposure to the truth. If the parents' lies are such that they cannot stand an encounter with a public area without the participation of the general public, then the only reasonable way to maintain those lies is to not expose the children to areas where they might encounter the truth. If we're going to force the general public to support the lies parents tell their children, then we either need to start teaching our kids that lies are okay. Practicing vs. preaching, and all that.
Parents are responsible for rearing their children, and they can't push that responsibility onto everyone else. If they can't keep control of their children in a public area, they have two options: (a) avoid public areas, or (b) accept that the children will have to learn from experience, as they were always meant to.
quote:
Consideration of children when out in the general public is only reasonable for parents to expect.
There is nothing inherently reasonable about parents' expectations, nor anything to suggest that parents automatically get reasonable expectations. Quite on the contrary, it appears that a strong PEA-high is involved in parenting.
quote:
It's my opinion that lifestylers and people in general who only do the minimum of what is required by law while in public are not being respectful of others; they are simply keeping themselves out of jail! 
Give me a universally accepted community standard based on objective values, and I'll keep it in mind when I'm in public. For what it's worth, I don't lifestyle in public, except the occasional discretely worn accessory.
I try to be respectful of others, and mindful of what I consider to be my civic duties. I pick up litter and put it in the trashbin. I don't pollute. I don't smoke around others. If I've been working out and haven't had time to shower yet, I try not to sit next to anyone. I give up my seat to the infirm and the elderly. I let people ahead of me in line at the store if they appear to be in a hurry or have fewer goods than I do. I give money to beggars.
If someone is lying down, or sitting in a daze, I'm often the only person to go over and check on them, including their breathing and cardiac function if they're unconscious. I've followed drunk people home, helped traffic accident victims, kept vigil over people who are ill, and talked people out of suicides.
And I check on any kid that's crying with no parents around, etc.
But I fail to see any reason why I should not simply transpose equivalent standards to my lifestyle-related behaviour if I decide to practice in public. I'm not saying that the law itself has any value; I'm saying that it provides an outline of the minimum standards of the community.
I don't engage in prolonged sessions of french kissing in the middle of a busy street or such, but I have no problem with it in a secluded corner of a park, for instance. This transposes readily to me not having anyone kiss my feet in said busy street, shopping mall or wherever, but I see no problem with doing it in the same places where I'd be comfortable french kissing.
I wouldn't have someone ask a sales clerk whether a cucumber would fit their arse, but I'd have no problem having a crossdresser ask a sales clerk whether a certain piece is going to look good on them, for the same reasons Elorin mentioned.
Sales clerks are there to answer questions, or we'd have vending machines for everything. I'm not about to make their jobs harder, but I don't mind giving them a good laugh, or if they're working in a field where they're expected to answer more "delicate" questions, I don't mind having them answer such questions of a slightly different nature.
To return to the cucumber, I wouldn't have them ask the grocery store clerk if a cucumber would fit, but I would have no problem having them ask the sex-toy store clerk if a certain buttplug would fit.
quote:
I agree that how parents want their children to see the world is both a responsibility and a choice that parents make. Sadly, I do not like the choices that many parents make. They all too often perpetuate predudices and social stigmas that our society needs to grow beyond.
Exactly. And if they don't want these prejudices challenged, that's their responsibility. I am in no way obligated to help someone raise their child as a model KKK member, and I am equivalently not obligated to help someone raise their child with prejudices about what kind of relationships are acceptable between consenting adults.
quote:
I can only influence my children and hope my actions and those of others who act as role models for children (I help coach a girls volleyball team) will set positive examples of how all should be treated. 
Sounds good. Though you do influence children other than your own, every time they are exposed to you. Nice of you to get involved, though.
quote:
That said, I strongly disagree with the part of your statement above that goes as follows: "Objectively, children are as capable of dealing with the world, on their own level, as adults". Younger children are simply not developed mentally or emotionally to deal with the world on the same level as adults.
Hence, "on their own level". Which is to say that a child who stumbles upon their parents having sex won't relate to that in the same way as an adult would, but they'll relate to it in their own frame of reference. Obviously you don't start explaining to them all the emotional and physical stuff involved, since they're not ready to deal with that, so you give them an explanation on a level that they can deal with, without any drama, and they don't end up being traumatized by it.
The same thing goes for anything else. If a kid were to ask me why neph wears a collar, I would pare it down to their level thus: "You know that wedding ring your parents wear? This is just a different kind of wedding ring."
Simple as that. You don't give them the adult version. You give them the version they're ready to deal with. But they're ready to deal with the same events and actions, just on different levels. If they see a traffic accident, they deal with it. If they lose a pet, they deal with it. They don't deal with these on the same level an adult would, but they're dealing with the same world.
quote:
I do agree with the latter part of that particular statement (omitted in my quotation) which essentially stated that children are naturally a lot less predudiced than adults, as it's been my observation that predudices are learned.
That has been my experience too, and is a significant part of the thrust of my argument.
As long as you don't dramatize things, children relate to stuff as being natural, and they have a natural curiosity. If the parents want to traumatize or prejudice their children, I can't do very much about that, but I'm not going to be part of it. Hence, I'm going to extend exactly the same consideration to them as to other adults with regards to what I expose them to, and I'm prepared to answer their questions if they have any. On their level. Just as I'd answer an adult (on an adult level, though) if they have questions.
If someone asks me if I can stop doing something because it annoys them, I generally do so. If they can't be bothered to ask, I'm going to have to go with what I believe to be reasonable behaviour.
quote:
BTW, I'll leave your comments on other societies for some other time as we're talking about our society and more importantly, I really don't have the time to go there right now. 
This is an international forum, although admittedly I find it unlikely that said cultures have any significant Internet presence. Feel free to address it later, though.
My point was, quite simply, that children aren't damaged by observing even overtly sexual behaviour in public, nor are they influenced in any negative way. Any negative contribution from the experience will be derived from feedback. I can only justify avoiding behaviour that would reasonably aggravate the adult population, and providing the kids with neutral feedback on whatever they may see.
quote:
It is not my purpose to "hold my children back." Instead, it is to allow them to grow at their own pace. They will only be children once. I want them to be able to experience it for as long as they can before gradually taking on the responsibilities of adulthood.
"For as long as they can" is holding them back. "For as long as they want to" is letting them grow at their own pace. Challenging their various faculties along the way is just helping them grow.
They will indeed only be children once, and that is the time when they acquire most of their cognitive abilities, social mores, prejudices, and so forth. Therefore, it is imperative that we spend this time preparing them for adulthood, and everything else is secondary. Playing, eating, attending school and so forth are all just preparations for adulthood, and maintenance (meeting needs) along the way.
Adulthood is where they'll spend the bulk of their lives, and parenting isn't just about securing their childhood, it's about securing their adulthood.
We spend lots of time trying to make sure they get a decent education, that they can get a job, and that they have what it takes to make a life for themselves. Not challenging them to grow as much as they can during their formative years is holding them back in this regard.
quote:
As a parent, my job is to "give them wings and teach them to fly on their own". Having them suddenly immersed into the adult world is not the way I'd like to see them enter it. Instead, I prefer they be allowed to gradually do that as they're ready.
They're born into the adult world. What they gradually immerse themselves in, or (as you say) become immersed in by their parents, is social interactions, responsibilities and caring for themselves.
quote:
I think they have a lot of relevence and that you've either taken my words out of context or misunderstood their intent. Hopefully, I've clarified my thoughts in this reply. I suspect however that we still won't likely agree. In any event, we can at least we can agree to disagree.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I'd rather understand your position before I choose whether to adopt it or not, whether in part or in full, and I credit you with the same preference
It seems I did misunderstand parts of what you said, and your clarification was useful in that regard. It also seems, however, that you misunderstood parts of what I said as well, and I hope my own clarification will be useful to you.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Responsible Public Humiliation - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread