DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: El Barto on August 23, 2010, 10:27:00 AM
-
I'd really like to make this a discussion, so I'll try to avoid the traditional El Barto rant.
I and others have pointed out in two other threads that children are overrated and overvalued. I don't get it. The parental instinct is obvious, so I can understand people's blind devotion to their own kids. But there's an overwhelming tendency towards this in society in general. I neither like nor dislike all kids. Like all other members of the human race, some are cool and others should just crawl off and die. To me, all people start off on the same level, and being 5 years old doesn't give you an advantage.
What is it that makes one of these people any better than the other?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NjdBzKI5nYs/ScxQblVy_zI/AAAAAAAABrQ/kKqSu-EtJUU/s400/cute+kid+wallpaper+babby+pics+images+photos.jpg)
(https://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/after/emerging-src/images/poor_detail1.jpg)
I think squirrels are cute, but I don't think any higher of them than I do the rat that they're related to. What makes kids so special?
-
[Ronnie Dio]I doooooooooooooooooo![/Ronnie Dio]
*Vivian Campbell riff*
cue Dave Meniketti, Don Dokken, Rob Halford, etc....
/thread
-
I think it is the innocense. They are unmolded flesh so people temd to like them more. Me, I agree with you...
-
I care about Mrs. Cozmo's kid and my brother's kids. That's pretty much it. Children are terrorists, plain and simple. Their job is to break you, break your spirit, and break your wallet. They know it, you know it, and everybody knows it. They'll knife you in the back (mostly figuratively) at the first opportunity, if they think it will be beneficial to them in some way.
I think it's because they're "helpless" and "cute" that they get a free pass where others don't. Now when they're trained properly, cool things like this happen: Link (https://cbs13.com/local/manteca.fire.station.2.1872689.html). Most of the time it's shit, sleep, make lots of noise, and have the world wait on me hand and foot. So in a lot of ways children are pretty much like cats, except for the fact that they eventually become useful and have the potential to grow out of the mindset that they are the center of the universe.
-
Simply, children are defensless. This is one example. It's not mean to be the holy grail of why but just a small example.
My nephew was told a billion times to not leave out side when crossing a street or in a parking lot. Yet he blindly ran in a grocery parking lot and got clipped by a car, with his mother, my wife and myself screaming. Now at the age of 21, he knows better. Children are not aware of their surroundings and need a perents protection
And yes to cozmo, they are energy and life hijackers. :rollin
-
Me, I've never considered helplessness to be a redeeming quality. Stephen Hawking is as helpless as it gets, and I certainly don't fawn over his ugly ass. And to be perfectly honest, when he dies, I'll view it as a much greater tragedy than the death of some random, unnamed kid that happens that day.
-
The supposed theory is that "If you had kids, you would understand."
Umm, no. No I would not. I would still think that kids should be on every terrorist watchlist in the country. My lack of patience and desire to give a shit would be no less.
I get what you're saying and you're right. Helplessness isn't very attractive. How cute is it when your child grows up to be a teenager and sits around wanting you to get this or that for them, when they're clearly capable. Not so cute anymore. "Get it your damned self."
-
WHY CAN'T MY 3 YEAR OLD BE SMART LIKE DAKOTA FANNING GOD DAMNIT?! FUCKING 3 SECOND GOLDFISH MEMORY!!!
-
One of the issues is that there's a tendency to believe that all life is sacred and that all children, no matter what deserve to live.
-
See sig.
|
V
-
Children are by and large a blank canvas, and thus any actions (or lack thereof) you perform that have an effect on them will likely shape their future personality and attitude. Plus, on a more pragmatic point, they will be the ones funding your pensions and social security, so you probably want them better off.
-
Children are by and large a blank canvas, and thus any actions (or lack thereof) you perform that have an effect on them will likely shape their future personality and attitude. Plus, on a more pragmatic point, they will be the ones funding your pensions and social security, so you probably want them better off.
And rolling my burritos. I can certainly appreciate the pragmatic side, but that doesn't address the irrational doting that the majority demonstrates towards random, generic kiddos. Nor does it really matter since there will always be more to come along. There will no doubt be plenty of people to fund my pension. Plenty of others who will embezzle from it. And yet even more who will dance topless to entertain me during those lecherous golden years that beckon me.
As for the blank canvass, look around you. Some will turn out to be alright, and many others will be real assholes. Of course, most will be average. A few great ones and a few dipshits thrown in as well. It's all good and well to believe that every cute wittle kiddo you come across might be the next Albert Switzer, but he is of course just as [un]likely to be the next Albert Fish.
As I've thought about this, (it's been a slow day back at work), I'm starting to think that there's just something in our wiring that leads to this weird love for children. There really is no rational reason that I can think of why people place such overwhelming value on kids in general.
-
Children are by and large a blank canvas, and thus any actions (or lack thereof) you perform that have an effect on them will likely shape their future personality and attitude. Plus, on a more pragmatic point, they will be the ones funding your pensions and social security, so you probably want them better off.
This.
-
Buffalo sure do when they form a circle around their young to protect them from predators.
-
Buffalo sure do when they form a circle around their young to protect them from predators.
Yes, when other animals are trying to kill and eat them. Sliiiightly different.
-
Is this also geared towards the amount of censorship entertainment/media, even stuff made specifically for adults, gets in the name of "protecting the children" or would that be a whole other topic?
-
Is this also geared towards the amount of censorship entertainment/media, even stuff made specifically for adults, gets in the name of "protecting the children" or would that be a whole other topic?
I hope it's the same, because that stuff is crap too. Like any child that gets their tv censored grows up to be a virgin who doesn't smoke, drink, curse or do heroin.
THEY ALL DO!
-
So by the sound of it everybody must wants to thin the heard. Guys, children have no sense of right and wrong do's and dont's. All the little idiosyncrasy's a child has to learn. As they get into the teenage years, they form their own opinions and you try to give them a little more freedom and guidence to mold them on what is right and wrong. It's not science and it's not a law on how to do it. Your values you can give to your child and others choose differently. I don't see the big deal.
I would like to know how this dotting on children has affected all of you?
I'll remind you all that my wife and I couldn't bear children.
-
But I don't see the point in protecting the children from the real world, when they end up embracing it anyway.
-
You don't protect them from everything. Kids have to get in fights to learn to protect themselves. I'm not saying push them to fight but when the time. Others like how to cross the street, yes! Until they get it right. Then their on their own. You can never protect everything. Hell if my mom found out all the things I did, I would have been stuck in the house till I was 18. :laugh:
-
I would never have the patience to raise my own child. Period. Anyone can tell me that I would when the time came, but I KNOW MYSELF. It would never happen. I think yes, to some degree, children have little sense of right and wrong, but they learn very quickly what they should and should not do. Why do kids cry? They know it will annoy you into coming and paying attention to them. That's not being mean, it's just fact. Children are eleventeen brazilion times more aware of things than anybody gives them credit for. They quietly observe the dynamics of what goes on around them and they pick up on how to manipulate adults. Problem is, most of the time, the adults never even realize it, until bad habits have become solidified as part of the child's way of dealing with things.
EDIT: Yes, I know they cry for plenty of legitimate reasons also.
-
So by the sound of it everybody must wants to thin the heard. Guys, children have no sense of right and wrong do's and dont's. All the little idiosyncrasy's a child has to learn. As they get into the teenage years, they form their own opinions and you try to give them a little more freedom and guidence to mold them on what is right and wrong. It's not science and it's not a law on how to do it. Your values you can give to your child and others choose differently. I don't see the big deal.
I would like to know how this dotting on children has affected all of you?
I'll remind you all that my wife and I couldn't bear children.
Yeah, but why don't the parents raise their children instead of the government do it. After all, it's their JOB as PARENTS to teach their kid right from wrong. Why don't they worry about doing that instead of bugging the government to do it for them?
-
So by the sound of it everybody must wants to thin the heard. Guys, children have no sense of right and wrong do's and dont's. All the little idiosyncrasy's a child has to learn. As they get into the teenage years, they form their own opinions and you try to give them a little more freedom and guidence to mold them on what is right and wrong. It's not science and it's not a law on how to do it. Your values you can give to your child and others choose differently. I don't see the big deal.
I would like to know how this dotting on children has affected all of you?
I'll remind you all that my wife and I couldn't bear children.
Yeah, but why don't the parents raise their children instead of the government do it. After all, it's their JOB as PARENTS to teach their kid right from wrong. Why don't they worry about doing that instead of bugging the government to do it for them?
Examples of government interference/
-
I think he means people like you wanting stricter and stricter laws protecting children.
And by the way kingsypoo, my post was more about cencorship. TV shows aren't allowed foul language, nudity, or anything like that. Oddly enough almost every single child grows up to curse and have sex way earlier than their parents intended them to.
-
I think he means people like you wanting stricter and stricter laws protecting children.
And by the way kingsypoo, my post was more about cencorship. TV shows aren't allowed foul language, nudity, or anything like that. Oddly enough almost every single child grows up to curse and have sex way earlier than their parents intended them to.
I've never had a problem with that. Let the parents decide. I know that the whole nipple gate has changed a lot of things and thats why were stuck with old bands playing halftime. :laugh:
Nobody wants to see Keith Richard's nipples anyway.
You've got to admit, there a better places to watch gyrating(sp?) than a halftime show at a football game. I'd rather see a little more skin on the interwebs. :hat
-
The hell are you talking about? Football? You seem to be the only person linking children to balls.
Aside from Icy that is.
-
The hell are you talking about? Football? You seem to be the only person linking children to balls.
Aside from Icy that is.
:rollin
How am I supposed tp respond to perfection like this?! I can't defend myself! :lol Good Night! :lol
-
So by the sound of it everybody must wants to thin the heard. Guys, children have no sense of right and wrong do's and dont's. All the little idiosyncrasy's a child has to learn. As they get into the teenage years, they form their own opinions and you try to give them a little more freedom and guidence to mold them on what is right and wrong. It's not science and it's not a law on how to do it. Your values you can give to your child and others choose differently. I don't see the big deal.
I would like to know how this dotting on children has affected all of you?
I'll remind you all that my wife and I couldn't bear children.
Yeah, but why don't the parents raise their children instead of the government do it. After all, it's their JOB as PARENTS to teach their kid right from wrong. Why don't they worry about doing that instead of bugging the government to do it for them?
Examples of government interference/
PAP proposing the government put firewalls on all public computers to protect their childrens' innocent eyes from pornography. "Sex should be learned at home, not online"
That's one of many examples of parents wanting the government to raise their children.
-
Is this also geared towards the amount of censorship entertainment/media, even stuff made specifically for adults, gets in the name of "protecting the children" or would that be a whole other topic?
It's not geared towards any specific example at all. It's about the broad-reaching, generalized overvaluing of children. Society as a whole tends to put children up on a pedestal whereas I and some others don't see them as any more or less important than anybody else. I'm puzzled why.
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
-
Is this also geared towards the amount of censorship entertainment/media, even stuff made specifically for adults, gets in the name of "protecting the children" or would that be a whole other topic?
It's not geared towards any specific example at all. It's about the broad-reaching, generalized overvaluing of children. Society as a whole tends to put children up on a pedestal whereas I and some others don't see them as any more or less important than anybody else. I'm puzzled why.
I was watching a documentary on the MPAA and a lot of their views astound me. Naturally since they rate based solely around children and since America is sex deprived for some reason some of the ratings they gave movies were so over the top it was hysterical. On the list of the some of the things they rated NC-17 (because it'll ruin children's minds) was a very quick shot of a woman's pubic hair as well as implied masturbation. Even a shot of a woman's face just having an orgasm for too long without showing anything was almost an instant hard R or NC-17. The thing that is really annoying about that is that 99% of a movie made for adults could be fantastic but those one or two scenes that are clearly only adult oriented might give it that NC-17 rating which essentially means the movie will never get released by a major studio. All that is done in the name of protecting children who shouldn't even be watching those movies and it's fucked up.
-
I agree with the OP, there are very few kids I like, and if anything, they're LESS important than the rest of us. They're annoying and contribute nothing, and throw one or two shitty parents into the mix (in 90%+ of cases) and it's a recipe for disaster.
But they are people and they are helpless, which I suppose warrants them some level of protection from those capable of giving it.
-J
-
Well so what can we do? Do we like start giving euthanasia to those kids with inferior IQ or physical qualities? I don't mind that, but the society just won't accept it.
Well I'd like to hear some more from the women of this forum. I'm sure they have different views on this since most of the time, mothers are more protecting of their children (there aren't any mothers here though, afaik).
As for my own, I'm pretty much neutral. I'm on El Barto's side, actually. They may shape our future, but it should be more like they'll shape THEIR future. Just like among ourselves, there are people who are better off non-existent, I think it's the same thing among the children. There are children who are better off non-existent, and there are children who are clearly assets.
-
(https://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/f60/6ad/f606ad58-47f5-4488-8254-722341a4b726)
-
Anyone that cant see the importance of children isnt thinking.
Anyone that doesnt feel love and affection towards children, even in the most minute sense, isnt feeling.
Anyone who feels that children are of no importance, or dont contribute anything to society, needs to buy a mirror, and evaluate honestly what they are contributing.....and I will be willing to bet that many see a child looking back in that miror.
Seriously, this is one of the most immature threads I have seen, and smacks of the typical adolescent views of children..
EDIT: I too get annoyed by children...even my own. But I also realize that most unacceptable behavoir by kids can be mostly attributed to the parents. I also realize, that even after all the annoying things, that children are one of the most precious things that are in this world.
-
So by the sound of it everybody must wants to thin the heard. Guys, children have no sense of right and wrong do's and dont's. All the little idiosyncrasy's a child has to learn. As they get into the teenage years, they form their own opinions and you try to give them a little more freedom and guidence to mold them on what is right and wrong. It's not science and it's not a law on how to do it. Your values you can give to your child and others choose differently. I don't see the big deal.
I would like to know how this dotting on children has affected all of you?
I'll remind you all that my wife and I couldn't bear children.
Yeah, but why don't the parents raise their children instead of the government do it. After all, it's their JOB as PARENTS to teach their kid right from wrong. Why don't they worry about doing that instead of bugging the government to do it for them?
Examples ?of government interference/
PAP proposing the government put firewalls on all public computers to protect their childrens' innocent eyes from pornography. "Sex should be learned at home, not online"
That's one of many examples of parents wanting the government to raise their children.
Why? I have no problem getting porn. The government hadn't stoped me yet? I don't see the point. If I want porn it's a click away.
-
Also, I don't begrudge anyone their opportunity to have kids. Some people think that it's going to make their life complete and in some instances they're right. A lot of times, they're wrong and they end up resentful. All I'd ever ask a parent is that if you're going to have a child, don't be a fuckup parent. Keep your child in line the way a parent is supposed to. Yes, let them be children, don't force completely unrealistic expectations on them, but by the same token, don't let them be completely evil, sniveling, manipulative little terrorists that get away with whatever they want, because it's too much work for you to do the right thing.
Also, I know that there are extenuating circumstances sometimes. Children born with birth defects or learning impairment, for example. Examples like that require different considerations and are outside of the scope of my bitching.
-
Anyone that cant see the importance of children isnt thinking.
Anyone that doesnt feel love and affection towards children, even in the most minute sense, isnt feeling.
Anyone who feels that children are of no importance, or dont contribute anything to society, needs to buy a mirror, and evaluate honestly what they are contributing.....and I will be willing to bet that many see a child looking back in that miror.
Seriously, this is one of the most immature threads I have seen, and smacks of the typical adolescent views of children..
EDIT: I too get annoyed by children...even my own. But I also realize that most unacceptable behavoir by kids can be mostly attributed to the parents. I also realize, that even after all the annoying things, that children are one of the most precious things that are in this world.
So if you do not conform to the society, you're immature and adolescent? Look. I think snakes are as adorable and precious as children. But I can't say that if you can't see the importance of snakes, you aren't thinking, etc, etc. Because snakes are generally hated upon. Why? For absolutely ridiculous and non-sense reasons. Now the love for children may not be ridiculous. They are human just like us, they're innocent, they look cute, they hold our future, etc. But can we just try to look at them in the way we look at any other objects or living things on Earth?
For me, I think it's perfectly efficient for people to stop raising half of their children who are less competent, and devote the time earned to invest on something more promising and productive.
You can call me a jackass and a cold-hearted person. But it's just that I look at humans just the way I look at every other things in existence. Or well, I try to.
-
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
-
Anyone that cant see the importance of children isnt thinking.
Anyone that doesnt feel love and affection towards children, even in the most minute sense, isnt feeling.
Anyone who feels that children are of no importance, or dont contribute anything to society, needs to buy a mirror, and evaluate honestly what they are contributing.....and I will be willing to bet that many see a child looking back in that miror.
Seriously, this is one of the most immature threads I have seen, and smacks of the typical adolescent views of children..
EDIT: I too get annoyed by children...even my own. But I also realize that most unacceptable behavoir by kids can be mostly attributed to the parents. I also realize, that even after all the annoying things, that children are one of the most precious things that are in this world.
So if you do not conform to the society, you're immature and adolescent? Look. I think snakes are as adorable and precious as children. But I can't say that if you can't see the importance of snakes, you aren't thinking, etc, etc. Because snakes are generally hated upon. Why? For absolutely ridiculous and non-sense reasons. Now the love for children may not be ridiculous. They are human just like us, they're innocent, they look cute, they hold our future, etc. But can we just try to look at them in the way we look at any other objects or living things on Earth?
For me, I think it's perfectly efficient for people to stop raising half of their children who are less competent, and devote the time earned to invest on something more promising and productive.
You can call me a jackass and a cold-hearted person. But it's just that I look at humans just the way I look at every other things in existence. Or well, I try to.
That was silly. Equating snakes and children. :lol
And I didnt say you are immature or adolescent if you dont conform to society. You just decided to do that out of thin air.
And no, you shouldnt equate children with all other objects on Earth. Some things have more intrinsic and universal value than others.
Try again.
-
Some things have more intrinsic and universal value than others.
And this is what makes me quit discussions like this.
Sorry, but I can't continue because we clearly don't have same beliefs.
-
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
Exactly. The 94 year old was able to experience a lifetime on this Earth, and the kid has that taken away. And the 94 year old has the experience, wisdom, and understanding to deal with dying. The kid is innocent, and isnt equipped. Damn dude....
-
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
Exactly. The 94 year old was able to experience a lifetime on this Earth, and the kid has that taken away. And the 94 year old has the experience, wisdom, and understanding to deal with dying. The kid is innocent, and isnt equipped. Damn dude....
I'll try to tackle this. If the kid was like 12 to 20, then that is tragic. Because he learned about all the pleasures you can experience in life. But I don't see any tragedy in the death of an infant to age 2 to 3. Because they didn't learn much about life and death doesn't mean much to them anyway.
-
Anyone that cant see the importance of children isnt thinking.
Anyone that doesnt feel love and affection towards children, even in the most minute sense, isnt feeling.
Anyone who feels that children are of no importance, or dont contribute anything to society, needs to buy a mirror, and evaluate honestly what they are contributing.....and I will be willing to bet that many see a child looking back in that miror.
Seriously, this is one of the most immature threads I have seen, and smacks of the typical adolescent views of children..
EDIT: I too get annoyed by children...even my own. But I also realize that most unacceptable behavoir by kids can be mostly attributed to the parents. I also realize, that even after all the annoying things, that children are one of the most precious things that are in this world.
Believe it or not, I'll occasionally crack a smile when I see a cute kid being cute. Love and affection? Not so much. He's just another stranger. And my point wasn't that children are unimportant. Children in general are actually quite important. But not one of them is as valuable as society seems to want to deem him.
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
That's pretty much what I hope for in these threads. :tup
Like I said, this wasn't intended as a bag on all children thread. It's more about trying to understand the massive importance placed on each and every individual child.
-
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
Exactly. The 94 year old was able to experience a lifetime on this Earth, and the kid has that taken away. And the 94 year old has the experience, wisdom, and understanding to deal with dying. The kid is innocent, and isnt equipped. Damn dude....
I'll try to tackle this. If the kid was like 12 to 20, then that is tragic. Because he learned about all the pleasures you can experience in life. But I don't see any tragedy in the death of an infant to age 2 to 3. Because they didn't learn much about life and death doesn't mean much to them anyway.
Better practice tackling. That was sad.
-
Pretty crazy how we go from an OP about people overvaluing and being overprotective of children to, on page two, posts about abandoning kids that aren't as smart as others and equating human life to a TV remote or any other object.
I think we've gotten into two entirely different topics at that point :lol
-
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
Exactly. The 94 year old was able to experience a lifetime on this Earth, and the kid has that taken away. And the 94 year old has the experience, wisdom, and understanding to deal with dying. The kid is innocent, and isnt equipped. Damn dude....
I'll try to tackle this. If the kid was like 12 to 20, then that is tragic. Because he learned about all the pleasures you can experience in life. But I don't see any tragedy in the death of an infant to age 2 to 3. Because they didn't learn much about life and death doesn't mean much to them anyway.
Better practice tackling. That was sad.
It was pretty fucking harsh, but a perfectly valid opinion nevertheless.
-
Anyone that cant see the importance of children isnt thinking.
Anyone that doesnt feel love and affection towards children, even in the most minute sense, isnt feeling.
Anyone who feels that children are of no importance, or dont contribute anything to society, needs to buy a mirror, and evaluate honestly what they are contributing.....and I will be willing to bet that many see a child looking back in that miror.
Seriously, this is one of the most immature threads I have seen, and smacks of the typical adolescent views of children..
EDIT: I too get annoyed by children...even my own. But I also realize that most unacceptable behavoir by kids can be mostly attributed to the parents. I also realize, that even after all the annoying things, that children are one of the most precious things that are in this world.
Believe it or not, I'll occasionally crack a smile when I see a cute kid being cute. Love and affection? Not so much. He's just another stranger. And my point wasn't that children are unimportant. Children in general are actually quite important. But not one of them is as valuable as society seems to want to deem him.
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
That's pretty much what I hope for in these threads. :tup
Like I said, this wasn't intended as a bag on all children thread. It's more about trying to understand the massive importance placed on each and every individual child.
Im not even talking about the cute factor.
If you want to talk about REAL importance, there is nothing more important for the species.
We are genetically hardwired to feel the way we do about children. Not when you are a teenager and you somehow think that snakes are as important as children, but when you have children of your own.
-
Why is some little kid dieing of Leukemia any more tragic than a 94 year old dieing of some other fucked up cancer? While the kid has potential (both good and bad), the old fart actually has experience and history. I'm more bummed by the death of an old guy who faught at Anzio than I am a kid who hasn't done anything at all yet.
Bart, c'mon man.
I'm not sure what the point of this thread even is. Yes, all death is tragic and all life is important, no one's is more or less. If that's your point, fine..I don't disagree, but there's something not right about a kid being robbed of life before they even get a chance to experience it. Certainly no kid asks for disease, nor does an old fogey, so I think I may get your overall point, but ...I don't know..it just doesn't feel right. Seems a little hard lined for me.
Exactly. The 94 year old was able to experience a lifetime on this Earth, and the kid has that taken away. And the 94 year old has the experience, wisdom, and understanding to deal with dying. The kid is innocent, and isnt equipped. Damn dude....
I'll try to tackle this. If the kid was like 12 to 20, then that is tragic. Because he learned about all the pleasures you can experience in life. But I don't see any tragedy in the death of an infant to age 2 to 3. Because they didn't learn much about life and death doesn't mean much to them anyway.
Better practice tackling. That was sad.
It was pretty fucking harsh, but a perfectly valid opinion nevertheless.
A 3 yr old dying of cancer isnt a tragedy? I guess it is valid if you think cow shit and used tires are as important and valuable as children.
But everybody is entitled to their opinion.
-
Well ok, not to that point. :lol
-
It's more about trying to understand the massive importance placed on each and every individual child.
My favorite scene in School Of Rock is where Jack Black recites the Whitney Houston song at the lunchroom table...
I'll just say to help you understand is that children ARE the future. Their path to adulthood is critical. It'd be great if after each baby was born that they could be examined with an Asshole-o-meter, but the fact is that our children must be taught and prepared.
-
Well ok, not to that point. :lol
I am trying to understand your point of view. I can understand trying to be consistent in your assignment of "value" to all things in this universe. I mean, why should one thing be intrinsicly valued more than the next? It seems fair, neat, and unbiased, right? But that isnt the way life is. Some things do have more value depending on their importance to something/someone, be it a person, an idea, or the survival of a species.
And things are constantly changing, which can change what is important to a person. I used to laugh at dead baby jokes.....but now if I see a terminally sick kid, or a toddler being critically injured...i get a lump in my throat. Likely due to me being older and a Father....(but I will still chuckle at a good dead baby joke)
If I am not understanding you, sorry. :)
-
Well no need to be sorry. I was kinda pushing my idea there as well. It's just that I try to judge things not in a human way, which is pretty much pretentious and immature.
-
It'd be great if after each baby was born that they could be examined with an Asshole-o-meter, but the fact is that our children must be taught and prepared.
I think it's safe to say (AFAIC) children have as much capacity to be assholes as anyone else. I'm sure if there was an Asshole-o-meter, you could walk through any elementary school hallway nowadays and the thing would be red-lined.
Also, yes, children DO need to be taught and prepared to be contributing members of society. Unfortunately, a disturbingly HUGE number of parents get to the point that "Sonofabitch, this is a lot of work to raise a child" and they subconsciously do as little to raise their child properly as they can get by with. The phrase "Do do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time" is actually quite fitting in that instance. :lol
-
Well ok, not to that point. :lol
I am trying to understand your point of view. I can understand trying to be consistent in your assignment of "value" to all things in this universe. I mean, why should one thing be intrinsicly valued more than the next? It seems fair, neat, and unbiased, right? But that isnt the way life is. Some things do have more value depending on their importance to something/someone, be it a person, an idea, or the survival of a species.
And things are constantly changing, which can change what is important to a person. I used to laugh at dead baby jokes.....but now if I see a terminally sick kid, or a toddler being critically injured...i get a lump in my throat. Likely due to me being older and a Father....(but I will still chuckle at a good dead baby joke)
If I am not understanding you, sorry. :)
And my concern is why people don't get that same lump in their throat when some old woman is sick or injured. From what I can tell it's because she's no longer cute. As far as I'm concerned, the Eleanor Rigby's of the world deserve just as much, if not more, consideration than the precious wittle kids do.
-
It'd be great if after each baby was born that they could be examined with an Asshole-o-meter, but the fact is that our children must be taught and prepared.
I think it's safe to say (AFAIC) children have as much capacity to be assholes as anyone else. I'm sure if there was an Asshole-o-meter, you could walk through any elementary school hallway nowadays and the thing would be red-lined.
Also, yes, children DO need to be taught and prepared to be contributing members of society. Unfortunately, a disturbingly HUGE number of parents get to the point that "Sonofabitch, this is a lot of work to raise a child" and they subconsciously do as little to raise their child properly as they can get by with. The phrase "Do do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time" is actually quite fitting in that instance. :lol
It isnt the child that needs to be examined and tested with the "Asshole-o-meter" at birth, it is the parents that need to be tested, as they are the overwhelming influence in what kind of kid they will raise.
-
Unfortunately, a disturbingly HUGE number of parents get to the point that "Sonofabitch, this is a lot of work to raise a child" and they subconsciously do as little to raise their child properly as they can get by with. The phrase "Do do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time" is actually quite fitting in that instance. :lol
I don't know Coz, I think MOST parents are doing the right thing.
-
Well ok, not to that point. :lol
I am trying to understand your point of view. I can understand trying to be consistent in your assignment of "value" to all things in this universe. I mean, why should one thing be intrinsicly valued more than the next? It seems fair, neat, and unbiased, right? But that isnt the way life is. Some things do have more value depending on their importance to something/someone, be it a person, an idea, or the survival of a species.
And things are constantly changing, which can change what is important to a person. I used to laugh at dead baby jokes.....but now if I see a terminally sick kid, or a toddler being critically injured...i get a lump in my throat. Likely due to me being older and a Father....(but I will still chuckle at a good dead baby joke)
If I am not understanding you, sorry. :)
And my concern is why people don't get that same lump in their throat when some old woman is sick or injured. From what I can tell it's because she's no longer cute. As far as I'm concerned, the Eleanor Rigby's of the world deserve just as much, if not more, consideration than the precious wittle kids do.
Well people do feel bad, but in a different way, or not to the same degree. I dont think you want to take this arguement to the end though, as by your logic, Hitler and Bundy deserve our throat lumps too, as they are human.
Children have certain qualities that will make us more sympathetic in cases of tragedy. They are helpless and innocent. I dont think it has to do with cuteness. We examine the situation and react on a case by case basis....but is likely rooted genetically as well.
-
Unfortunately, a disturbingly HUGE number of parents get to the point that "Sonofabitch, this is a lot of work to raise a child" and they subconsciously do as little to raise their child properly as they can get by with. The phrase "Do do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time" is actually quite fitting in that instance. :lol
I don't know Coz, I think MOST parents are doing the right thing.
95% of parents are doing the right thing and raising their kids well. But the other 5% are the ones in the news, and their behavoir is the annoying behavoir that garners attention in Walmart. Even good parents have bad days and make poor choices...and that is what you see. The good parents and good kids arent as noticeable.
-
Well ok, not to that point. :lol
I am trying to understand your point of view. I can understand trying to be consistent in your assignment of "value" to all things in this universe. I mean, why should one thing be intrinsicly valued more than the next? It seems fair, neat, and unbiased, right? But that isnt the way life is. Some things do have more value depending on their importance to something/someone, be it a person, an idea, or the survival of a species.
And things are constantly changing, which can change what is important to a person. I used to laugh at dead baby jokes.....but now if I see a terminally sick kid, or a toddler being critically injured...i get a lump in my throat. Likely due to me being older and a Father....(but I will still chuckle at a good dead baby joke)
If I am not understanding you, sorry. :)
And my concern is why people don't get that same lump in their throat when some old woman is sick or injured. From what I can tell it's because she's no longer cute. As far as I'm concerned, the Eleanor Rigby's of the world deserve just as much, if not more, consideration than the precious wittle kids do.
Well people do feel bad, but in a different way, or not to the same degree. I dont think you want to take this arguement to the end though, as by your logic, Hitler and Bundy deserve our throat lumps too, as they are human.
Children have certain qualities that will make us more sympathetic in cases of tragedy. They are helpless and innocent. I dont think it has to do with cuteness. We examine the situation and react on a case by case basis....but is likely rooted genetically as well.
You're citing two known assholes. If you take two generic people, say the two pictured in my OP, and have them both run over by a Budweiser truck, there will be hundreds of mourners building a giant tower of teddy bears at the kids funeral, and maybe a couple of family members at the old woman's.
-
It isnt the child that needs to be examined and tested with the "Asshole-o-meter" at birth, it is the parents that need to be tested, as they are the overwhelming influence in what kind of kid they will raise.
I know and that was part of my point. I know that parents are the primary influence in their kids being assholes, but I refuse to believe that the kid doesn't have some responsibility for it also. Kids nowadays have such entitlement issues, that they think the world is owed them, on a silver platter. Yes, no doubt parental misguidance comes into play there, but I refuse to believe that kids don't contribute to their own asshole-ish-ness at all.
When they're babies? No, I guess most of the asshole-ish-ness comes from the parents, but being a father, you know how aware children are, even when they're little. They observe. They take note of social cues and situations. They're smarter than anyone gives them credit for. They learn early how to manipulate their parents (not in an evil, destroy the world kinda way, but in the "get me a bottle!" kinda way). They figure out how to play one parent off the other as best they can. That isn't taught, it's observed and learned on their own. Interesting how that works, really, but it's one more reason I know I could never have a child of my own.
I don't know Coz, I think MOST parents are doing the right thing.
The 5% of parents that don't do the right thing are giving the other 95% a really bad name, by association. I dunno. I see SOOOOOOOO many self-important, gimme gimme gimme, wah I didn't make the team let's sue, entitled little brats in real life, in the lives of friends, in the lives of acquaintances, in the news, etc. that I cannot believe 100% that it's that little of a problem.
-
95% of parents are doing the right thing and raising their kids well. But the other 5% are the ones whose kids end up posting on DTF, and their behavoir is the annoying behavoir that garners attention in Walmart. Even good parents have bad days and make poor choices...and that is what you see. The good parents and good kids arent as noticeable.
I agree.
-
:rollin
-
:corn
-
Well ok, not to that point. :lol
I am trying to understand your point of view. I can understand trying to be consistent in your assignment of "value" to all things in this universe. I mean, why should one thing be intrinsicly valued more than the next? It seems fair, neat, and unbiased, right? But that isnt the way life is. Some things do have more value depending on their importance to something/someone, be it a person, an idea, or the survival of a species.
And things are constantly changing, which can change what is important to a person. I used to laugh at dead baby jokes.....but now if I see a terminally sick kid, or a toddler being critically injured...i get a lump in my throat. Likely due to me being older and a Father....(but I will still chuckle at a good dead baby joke)
If I am not understanding you, sorry. :)
And my concern is why people don't get that same lump in their throat when some old woman is sick or injured. From what I can tell it's because she's no longer cute. As far as I'm concerned, the Eleanor Rigby's of the world deserve just as much, if not more, consideration than the precious wittle kids do.
Well people do feel bad, but in a different way, or not to the same degree. I dont think you want to take this arguement to the end though, as by your logic, Hitler and Bundy deserve our throat lumps too, as they are human.
Children have certain qualities that will make us more sympathetic in cases of tragedy. They are helpless and innocent. I dont think it has to do with cuteness. We examine the situation and react on a case by case basis....but is likely rooted genetically as well.
You're citing two known assholes. If you take two generic people, say the two pictured in my OP, and have them both run over by a Budweiser truck, there will be hundreds of mourners building a giant tower of teddy bears at the kids funeral, and maybe a couple of family members at the old woman's.
First...who knows if there will be fewer at the old persons funeral?
Regardless, the factors that will create a bigger emotional reaction to a 90 yr old woman dying, and 4 yr old girl dying are pretty obvious and understandable.
1) The child is innocent and and cant comprehend what is happening. The lady has experience and wisdom, and is far better equipped to deal with it.
2) The child has not had the chance to live and experience all that this life can offer. The lady has had the benefit if a long life, so we dont lament her not having that.
3) I think we are genetically wired to feel this way toward offspring, and children in general, for the benefit of the species.
All things in this world are not equal. There are factors which make a human being feel more, or feel different, in different situations.
EDIT: I do understand your point. Why are they not treated equal? Because they arent equal. There are factors that make people feel different about one more than the other....that is about as simply as I can put it. What are those reasons? I put my views above, but they will likely differ between people...as obviouskly seen here in this thread :)
-
You're citing two known assholes. If you take two generic people, say the two pictured in my OP, and have them both run over by a Budweiser truck, there will be hundreds of mourners building a giant tower of teddy bears at the kids funeral, and maybe a couple of family members at the old woman's.
THAT's a womang??
The 5% of parents that don't do the right thing are giving the other 95% a really bad name, by association.
YES!
-
First...who knows if there will be fewer at the old persons funeral?
Regardless, the factors that will create a bigger emotional reaction to a 90 yr old woman dying, and 4 yr old girl dying are pretty obvious and understandable.
1) The child is innocent and and cant comprehend what is happening. The lady has experience and wisdom, and is far better equipped to deal with it.
2) The child has not had the chance to live and experience all that this life can offer. The lady has had the benefit if a long life, so we dont lament her not having that.
3) I think we are genetically wired to feel this way toward offspring, and children in general, for the benefit of the species.
All things in this world are not equal. There are factors which make a human being feel more, or feel different, in different situations.
1: Irrelevant. We're talking about the simple cessation of being, not some long, protracted death. There's nothing to come to grips with. You simply cease to be. If anything, I'd say that if there actually was anything to comprehend, then the old woman has it worse for the knowledge of impending loss.
2: The child gives up a future. The old woman gives up a history. Those two cancel out in my opinion. That old woman could tell you first hand what it was like to live through significant periods of Russian history.
3: This I'm inclined to agree with. Sadly, I don't think it benefits us in the slightest. The more people get their knickers in a twist over children, the more annoying they tend to become for the rest of us.
-
I think it's far more than 5% of people that are fuckup parents these days, but I understand your point.
-
First...who knows if there will be fewer at the old persons funeral?
Regardless, the factors that will create a bigger emotional reaction to a 90 yr old woman dying, and 4 yr old girl dying are pretty obvious and understandable.
1) The child is innocent and and cant comprehend what is happening. The lady has experience and wisdom, and is far better equipped to deal with it.
2) The child has not had the chance to live and experience all that this life can offer. The lady has had the benefit if a long life, so we dont lament her not having that.
3) I think we are genetically wired to feel this way toward offspring, and children in general, for the benefit of the species.
All things in this world are not equal. There are factors which make a human being feel more, or feel different, in different situations.
1: Irrelevant. We're talking about the simple cessation of being, not some long, protracted death. There's nothing to come to grips with. You simply cease to be. If anything, I'd say that if there actually was anything to comprehend, then the old woman has it worse for the knowledge of impending loss.
2: The child gives up a future. The old woman gives up a history. Those two cancel out in my opinion. That old woman could tell you first hand what it was like to live through significant periods of Russian history.
3: This I'm inclined to agree with. Sadly, I don't think it benefits us in the slightest. The more people get their knickers in a twist over children, the more annoying they tend to become for the rest of us.
1. Irrelevant for you, not for others. We are talking about death in general, not just a very narrow and specific example. We are talking about feelings here, and most people, likely including the old woman, would feel the way I do.
2. These two dont cancel out. The womans experiences already exist, and her death does not erase her experience, contributions, and effects. The girls never happened. Not equal by any stretch of the imagination.
3. Of course it benefits us. It is the propogation of the species, and the continuation of our society and what we think is important. And people being concerned about children is GOOD, and is only annoying for people like you. This world would be a better place if we were more concerned about our children and their future. We would have less economic, environmental, and criminal problems for sure if we truly cared.
I just think we should agree to disagree, as it seems we have vastly differing views.
-
Not everybody shares your valuation of our species or our society. While I'm fine with their continued existence, it won't really bum me out too much when either run their inevitable courses. As for the concern for the children, it doesn't bother me when demonstrated in reasonable amounts towards the kids that matter to you. What does bother me tremendously is the ridiculously overwhelming concern for all kids. That's when people make stupid decisions that effect all of us and very rarely for the better. Teach your kid to cope with society. Don't try to warp society to conform to some Ward Cleaver Ideal.
-
Teach your kid to cope with society. Don't try to warp society to conform to some Ward Cleaver Ideal.
So very this.
-
Teach your kid to cope with society. Don't try to warp society to conform to some Ward Cleaver Ideal.
So very this.
I agree too.....but who is doing this, and how is it part of this discussion?
-
One of the many detrimental effects of the overvaluation of children.
-
One of the many detrimental effects of the overvaluation of children.
I dont see how the "overvaluation" of children is causing the warping of society into a ward Cleaver Ideal. Example?
It appears to me that we arent valuing them enough as we are giving them a sick planet, and a horrible economic legacy. What part about todays society represents the Cleavers more than times past?
And what are other of the "many" detriments to this "overvaluation"?
-
Schools do it all the time. Every kid is a winner. Everyone gets a medal or a ribbon, or whatever. No they don't. There are winners and there are losers. Everybody isn't a winner, no matter how badly parents want to protect their children from having hurts feelings. How well do parents think that kinda of stuff is going to serve their child when they grow up and get out into the real world? When they get fired from their job for any number of reasons, they'll find out that not everone is a winner.
Then there's the sports parent who, when their child is given equal play time as the others, or worse, penalized for breaking a rule (purposely or accidentally breaking it), going all psycho because "NOT MY KID!" Yes, dad, your kid is, in fact not perfect. They CAN do wrong despite what you think. Parents (and yes, their kids as well) ready to meet other parents (and their kids) in the parking lot, because of some perceived "slight" to their kid on the soccer field. Things like this. Yes, some of these things ARE more along the line of what parents do, but they're still distorting the importance of their kid's place in the world by acting out like this.
Cope with society - some win, some lose.
Make society conform - everyone's a winner!
-
Schools do it all the time. Every kid is a winner. Everyone gets a medal or a ribbon, or whatever. No they don't. There are winners and there are losers. Everybody isn't a winner, no matter how badly parents want to protect their children from having hurts feelings. How well do parents think that kinda of stuff is going to serve their child when they grow up and get out into the real world? When they get fired from their job for any number of reasons, they'll find out that not everone is a winner.
Then there's the sports parent who, when their child is given equal play time as the others, or worse, penalized for breaking a rule (purposely or accidentally breaking it), going all psycho because "NOT MY KID!" Yes, dad, your kid is, in fact not perfect. They CAN do wrong despite what you think. Parents (and yes, their kids as well) ready to meet other parents (and their kids) in the parking lot, because of some perceived "slight" to their kid on the soccer field. Things like this. Yes, some of these things ARE more along the line of what parents do, but they're still distorting the importance of their kid's place in the world by acting out like this.
Cope with society - some win, some lose.
Make society conform - everyone's a winner!
I agree with this, and there is already a backlash against it (the "everybody is a winner" thing).
The solution is to teach kids there is winning and losing, but like with the ADM (American Development Model) in hockey, the focus in early years should be on skill development and enjoyment of the game, not winning or losing....introduce pure competition later on at more appropriate ages.
But that is for another discussion. This discussion seemed to be about why do we, or should we, care about children? And it seems I have helped it get way off track
-
Wow! The things you miss in 2 1/2 hours. :laugh:
-
Wow! The things you miss in 2 1/2 hours. :laugh:
Yeah, it seems that this thread got WAY off the tracks...due, in no small part, to myself. :)
-
I think we've all contributed to some degree. :lol
-
I think we've all contributed to some degree. :lol
Actually..it was the Children..but who cares? :lol
-
SEE WHAT I MEAN? Smart little shits they are. They've found a way to throw us completely off topic. They're f*cking with us, I tell ya.
-
Damn terrorists! A gang of 'em just rode by my house on a bunch of Big Wheels. Boarded up my windows right away!
-
It's probably not a bad idea.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szSLUjvAyGw
-
I was watching the Rush documentary last night, and my 4 yr old girl looks at Geddy and says, "Daddy!...its Tom Sawyer!"
Couldnt be more proud.
-
I was watching the Rush documentary last night, and my 4 yr old girl looks at Geddy and says, "Daddy!...its Tom Sawyer!"
Couldnt be more proud.
I swear to God, the other night my kids set up a Thomas The Tank Engine rock concert and played TCOT.
-
What the hell is goin on this thread?? Has everyone one of you forgotten YOU were a baby, then a kid, then a teenager and so on and so forth until you came to be the bitter people you are today towards kids? Seriously. Kids are important because they grow up. Kids become basically the whole world as far as humans are concerned. Because everyone doing great things now was once a kid.
I'm not even sure why this is even a question. Kids need protection and guidance. It's just the way nature works. You see it with all sorts of animals in nature, not just humans.
-
I have noticed that the people not understanding the question are simply stating that children should be valued. I don't think anyone had a different opinion. The question asked, I believe, is why children are so OVER valued. Not why they need some protection and so forth, but why they are more valued than others and so forth.
-
I have noticed that the people not understanding the question are simply stating that children should be valued. I don't think anyone had a different opinion. The question asked, I believe, is why children are so OVER valued. Not why they need some protection and so forth, but why they are more valued than others and so forth.
I dont think they are over valued. Many agree. If a person doesnt place much value on children (like I did when I was younger) it is natural to feel the value placed on them by the majority of society is over done.
-
Could you provide an example of children being over valued? What is over valued anyway besides some kind of opinion?
Yeah there are brat kids. But who knows what they will grow up to be. And not all old people are good people. The only difference between older people and kids, is the ability to comprehend life and consequences for actions and other higher thinking things like this. Children have innocence because they don't fully understand the world yet. I think in general children are not over valued. Maybe some kids are? but in general I think kids should most definitely be cared about and protected so they can grow up and develop for themselves.
Can anyone actually disagree with that? I mean to disagree with that is basically saying you yourself should not be valued, and should not have been taken care of enough to grow up and develop into who you are today.
And when you are older and perhaps become sick, and some young doctor find the cure for you, I don't think you'd feel as bitter. Just saying.
-
Saying that someone who touches a child sexually, is equal to someone who murders an adult is over valuing a child.
Hiding the real world from a child is over valuing a child.
There are other examples, but I don't feel like this is really my argument, so I'll let Bart finish if he so chooses.
-
Saying that someone who touches a child sexually, is equal to someone who murders an adult is over valuing a child.
That can hardly be used as an example. I dont think that is the prevalent view of most. Murder is on another plane compared to sexual abuse...regardless of the victims age. Apples to oranges.
Hiding the real world from a child is over valuing a child.
Hiding the "real world" is waaaay to vague too use as an example. Children should be exposed and educated about the "real" world at a proper pace. And there are some things a child should not be exposed to at any age.
There are other examples, but I don't feel like this is really my argument, so I'll let Bart finish if he so chooses.
None of those are good examples of "overvaluing" IMO
-
Just a question...and a serious one.
How many posters that feel children are overvalued actually have children?
I dont mean to say the usual, "well you wouldnt know until you have children" thing, but it really is true. The reason why children are so valued in society is that so many have had children, and the value you put on your own children is beyond comprehension if you arent a parent. Not only do I feel that way about my own, but it translates to children in general. Unless you are a parent, it will be difficult to understand....I sure didnt until I had my own....it goes beyong logic. I would happily die a horrible death if it would save my daughter.
Some would say that is overvaluing.....I find it to be natural.
EDIT: This discussion may have paralells to some on religion. In a discussion about the "value", for lack of a better word, of religion in ones life, or society as a whole, it will be unlikely that two sides can come to a real consensus. The two sides being an atheist, and a christian who has had a revelation from god. The later has had a life changing experience that has altered the way they see the world.
Same with being a parent.
-
Just a question...and a serious one.
How many posters that feel children are overvalued actually have children?
I dont mean to say the usual, "well you wouldnt know until you have children" thing, but it really is true. The reason why children are so valued in society is that so many have had children, and the value you put on your own children is beyond comprehension if you arent a parent. Not only do I feel that way about my own, but it translates to children in general. Unless you are a parent, it will be difficult to understand. it goes beyong logic. I would happily die a horrible death if it would save my daughter.
Some would say that is overvaluing.....I find it to be natural.
I don't think the OP meant that people overvalue their own children, that society as a whole overvalues anyones children. So in this case, it's probably children who you don't know.
-
Just a question...and a serious one.
How many posters that feel children are overvalued actually have children?
I dont mean to say the usual, "well you wouldnt know until you have children" thing, but it really is true. The reason why children are so valued in society is that so many have had children, and the value you put on your own children is beyond comprehension if you arent a parent. Not only do I feel that way about my own, but it translates to children in general. Unless you are a parent, it will be difficult to understand. it goes beyong logic. I would happily die a horrible death if it would save my daughter.
Some would say that is overvaluing.....I find it to be natural.
I don't think the OP meant that people overvalue their own children, that society as a whole overvalues anyones children. So in this case, it's probably children who you don't know.
But part of my point was that by being a parent, you value all children differently, not just yours. With so many parents in the world, that is what can shape societys values.
-
The "you wouldn't know until you had kids of your own" is real. I had a stepson (he was 5 when I met my wife) and then we had my kids. BIG f##king difference.
How you look at the world changes after becoming a parent. No matter what the non parents want to believe.
-
Saying that someone who touches a child sexually, is equal to someone who murders an adult is over valuing a child.
Hiding the real world from a child is over valuing a child.
There are other examples, but I don't feel like this is really my argument, so I'll let Bart finish if he so chooses.
Well like I thought, saying children are over valued is just an opinion you have. Just like my opinion that sexually abusing a child is just as egregious an act against another human being as murder. I really feel they are on the same level of awfulness. To me, it's the two worst things you can do to another person. And it's not just child abuse. I think rape is right there too. So opinions.
-
The "you wouldn't know until you had kids of your own" is real. I had a stepson (he was 5 when I met my wife) and then we had my kids. BIG f##king difference.
How you look at the world changes after becoming a parent. No matter what the non parents want to believe.
But it isn't a one way street. Non-Parents can call parents overprotective and naive just as a Parent could call a non-parent careless or inexperienced.
-
The "you wouldn't know until you had kids of your own" is real. I had a stepson (he was 5 when I met my wife) and then we had my kids. BIG f##king difference.
How you look at the world changes after becoming a parent. No matter what the non parents want to believe.
Yes, and we all have parents (most of us anyway) and grandparents. Yet we care more if a 7 year old we never met died, than we would if a father of 4 had died. Unless he course his children were very young. And then we'd just care about them living without a father.
-
The "you wouldn't know until you had kids of your own" is real. I had a stepson (he was 5 when I met my wife) and then we had my kids. BIG f##king difference.
How you look at the world changes after becoming a parent. No matter what the non parents want to believe.
Yes, and we all have parents (most of us anyway) and grandparents. Yet we care more if a 7 year old we never met died, than we would if a father of 4 had died. Unless he course his children were very young. And then we'd just care about them living without a father.
Correct. Society only cares if you die before puberty. :\
-
That's not too terribly far off.
-
Okay, let's get this back on track. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZktrrqT1A0
-
I haven't really been following the thread at all, but I wanted to pop in and say that I do care about the children.
-
I haven't really been following the thread at all, but I wanted to pop in and say that I do care about the children.
Care to elaborate why?
-
Because they post in this thread and ask the cutest little questions?
-
I haven't really been following the thread at all, but I wanted to pop in and say that I do care about the children.
Care to elaborate why?
Number one reason:
Because they post in this thread and ask the cutest little questions?
and number two reason:
Okay, let's get this back on track. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZktrrqT1A0
Actually, I care more about following Dio than Icy. So scratch that. Reverse it.
-
K glad to see you're taking this seriously.
-
No, Icy. I'm taking you seriously.
;)
-
Because they post in this thread and ask the cutest little questions?
:rollin
-
(https://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/045/204/original/coolface.jpg?1270142903)
-
Parents have no time for kids today. That's why they're the way they are. Children are fragile humans and they are our future as a race. We want them to change what we have done wrong.
Some of you sound cynical about kids but you won't know until you have one yourself. It's a human experience that one must do in order to understand. They're a lot of responsibility, if you don't find yourself responsible don't have kids. That's what parents should be teaching their young teens about.
-
Edit double post
-
I agree with you to an extent El Barto. If you were to tell me of the deaths two complete strangers one in his 80's and one whom is 1 year old, I will probably feel more for the 1 year old. I would feel more for the baby, here are my reasons. They are on equal ground as far as deeds for this world. The old may have done great things; the young may grow to do great things. This also is on par with the bad that has been done or could have been done. So this is not a factor in my thought/feeling process, as far as I'm concerned they cancel each other out. What is the contributing factor is that the elder has already experienced a fairly long life; the baby has not yet had the chance. To me they young and old are equal, but clearly the old has something the young does not and that is the experience of life.
It's very much like the old saying goes "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all". In order for me to make a different decision I would have to no more about the two people. For instance Christopher Hitchens is ill with cancer, if you were to tell me that he died and the very same day one of his kids died, I would feel more for him. To my knowledge his children have not contributed anywhere near what he has to the world.
I also completely understand what you are saying as well. Babies are basically a blank slate and the old have shaped society to a degree. Although I don't hold your position I can understand it and appreciate the logic behind it.
[rant]
Are children overvalued? Yes and no. There is no higher price to be paid then the loss of our children, I don't mean that in life only. People seem to overvalue the child's innocence far too much. You see it everywhere; parents coddling their child when it falls (and doesn't hurt itself in the slightest), parents being too protective ie germs, T.V, music and language etc.. And as mentioned before this bullshit propaganda that everything must be fair, everyone is a winner, this mentality is ruining society.
All this kind of crap does is breed ignorance and makes people sue or have laws passed because they are offended.
People need to stop having everyone else raise their children. If T.V is too violent or sexual turn the channel and teach to them about right and wrong, about sexuality. Teach them to think for themselves, teach them there is a time and place for all emotions, disagreements and most all have them question everything that they don't understand. Far too often I see a child ask a question and the parent either dismisses it or acts like it is a stupid question, instead of encouraging the child to ask more they are put in their "place".
Another thing that pisses me off is seeing a child that is incredibly obese. There is hardly an excuse other than bad parenting; genetics will play a small role.
[/rant]
EDIT: This discussion may have paralells to some on religion. In a discussion about the "value", for lack of a better word, of religion in ones life, or society as a whole, it will be unlikely that two sides can come to a real consensus. The two sides being an atheist, and a christian who has had a revelation from god. The later has had a life changing experience that has altered the way they see the world.
Same with being a parent.
This type of thinking is so full of bull. The only change in opinion on children I have ever heard of is that of the opinion toward ones own child. It is typically they hadn't realized how much they would love the child or how much it has changed there priorities. Don't pull the "you'll find out when you have kids" garbage it's different for everyone.
As for the religious gibberish of your post. Any Atheist that I have met that ever wrestled with the notion of god(s) has once realizing that there isn't one has come away a less distrought person, myself included. It was a life changing experience to realize that I didn't have to watch who I am and ask forgiveness for being human. You have no idea how good it feel to realize there is no celestial dictator watch my every move and threatening me with eternal torture.
Well like I thought, saying children are over valued is just an opinion you have. Just like my opinion that sexually abusing a child is just as egregious an act against another human being as murder. I really feel they are on the same level of awfulness. To me, it's the two worst things you can do to another person. And it's not just child abuse. I think rape is right there too. So opinions.
So opinions? Rape should never be put on par with murder, what a stupid thing to say. Yes rape is disgustingly terrible, it changes a person, it can be very detrimental to that person. Though where rape and murder differ is you can move on from rape, you cannot move on from death. Being murdered means your life is over, done. There is no moving on, there is no counseling, there is no having a good time afterward... You are DEAD... Even if there is an afterlife, you are still robbing a person of their life here on earth. Don't equate rape and murder, that’s just nonsense.
-
I agree with you to an extent El Barto. If you were to tell me of the deaths two complete strangers one in his 80's and one whom is 1 year old, I will probably feel more for the 1 year old. I would feel more for the baby, here are my reasons. They are on equal ground as far as deeds for this world. The old may have done great things; the young may grow to do great things. This also is on par with the bad that has been done or could have been done. So this is not a factor in my thought/feeling process, as far as I'm concerned they cancel each other out. What is the contributing factor is that the elder has already experienced a fairly long life; the baby has not yet had the chance. To me they young and old are equal, but clearly the old has something the young does not and that is the experience of life.
It's very much like the old saying goes "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all". In order for me to make a different decision I would have to no more about the two people. For instance Christopher Hitchens is ill with cancer, if you were to tell me that he died and the very same day one of his kids died, I would feel more for him. To my knowledge his children have not contributed anywhere near what he has to the world.
I guess if you're just talking about "feelings" there's not really an issue. But anything beyond that and you're getting close to dangerous philosophical territory, making judgments on the value of one life vs. another.
I do agree with your initial point though, that *in general*, the chance to experience life is the one truly discernible difference between young and old, and it is worth considering.
I also completely understand what you are saying as well. Babies are basically a blank slate and the old have shaped society to a degree. Although I don't hold your position I can understand it and appreciate the logic behind it.
[rant]
Are children overvalued? Yes and no. There is no higher price to be paid then the loss of our children, I don't mean that in life only. People seem to overvalue the child's innocence far too much. You see it everywhere; parents coddling their child when it falls (and doesn't hurt itself in the slightest), parents being too protective ie germs, T.V, music and language etc.. And as mentioned before this bullshit propaganda that everything must be fair, everyone is a winner, this mentality is ruining society.
All this kind of crap does is breed ignorance and makes people sue or have laws passed because they are offended.
People need to stop having everyone else raise their children. If T.V is too violent or sexual turn the channel and teach to them about right and wrong, about sexuality. Teach them to think for themselves, teach them there is a time and place for all emotions, disagreements and most all have them question everything that they don't understand. Far too often I see a child ask a question and the parent either dismisses it or acts like it is a stupid question, instead of encouraging the child to ask more they are put in their "place".
Another thing that pisses me off is seeing a child that is incredibly obese. There is hardly an excuse other than bad parenting; genetics will play a small role.
[/rant]
Agreed for the most part. I have no children so I'm sure the old "you just don't understand how difficult it is to be a parent" may very well apply, but I maintain that parental ineptitude is one of society's biggest problems.
Well like I thought, saying children are over valued is just an opinion you have. Just like my opinion that sexually abusing a child is just as egregious an act against another human being as murder. I really feel they are on the same level of awfulness. To me, it's the two worst things you can do to another person. And it's not just child abuse. I think rape is right there too. So opinions.
So opinions? Rape should never be put on par with murder, what a stupid thing to say. Yes rape is disgustingly terrible, it changes a person, it can be very detrimental to that person. Though where rape and murder differ is you can move on from rape, you cannot move on from death. Being murdered means your life is over, done. There is no moving on, there is no counseling, there is no having a good time afterward... You are DEAD... Even if there is an afterlife, you are still robbing a person of their life here on earth. Don't equate rape and murder, that’s just nonsense.
While I agree with your conclusion, I'd point out that in some cases, the rape (or whatever) victim *is* robbed of their life in a sense. Some people never recover, live in misery, or even kill themselves as a result. Still, they obviously can't be equated, I just didn't want to totally downplay the fact that a person CAN have their life effectively "taken" from them in ways other than outright murder.
-J
-
El JoNNo. I don't have kids and value I them highly. I'll qoute you here,
"People need to stop having everyone else raise their children. If T.V is too violent or sexual turn the channel and teach to them about right and wrong, about sexuality. Teach them to think for themselves, teach them there is a time and place for all emotions, disagreements and most all have them question everything that they don't understand. Far too often I see a child ask a question and the parent either dismisses it or acts like it is a stupid question, instead of encouraging the child to ask more they are put in their place".
I do agree with everything here but I do have to say certain programing for channels in the morning should be for the children. Society in America is a little uptight about sex on TV but I don't have a problem with them not running it durring the day but at night. Past 8pm should be grown up content on TV and it is up to the parent to be a parent. I think thought that America allows after 10pm? where Europe is 8pm? Help me out DFT Europe.
All in all is is up to the parents but there should be a few guidlings about programing. Hell, with a the technology today a perent can block any channels if the have a cable box.
-
El JoNNo. I don't have kids and value I them highly. I'll qoute you here,
"People need to stop having everyone else raise their children. If T.V is too violent or sexual turn the channel and teach to them about right and wrong, about sexuality. Teach them to think for themselves, teach them there is a time and place for all emotions, disagreements and most all have them question everything that they don't understand. Far too often I see a child ask a question and the parent either dismisses it or acts like it is a stupid question, instead of encouraging the child to ask more they are put in their place".
I do agree with everything here but I do have to say certain programing for channels in the morning should be for the children. Society in America is a little uptight about sex on TV but I don't have a problem with them not running it durring the day but at night. Past 8pm should be grown up content on TV and it is up to the parent to be a parent. I think thought that America allows after 10pm? where Europe is 8pm? Help me out DFT Europe.
All in all is is up to the parents but there should be a few guidlings about programing. Hell, with a the technology today a perent can block any channels if the have a cable box.
I agree I am not advocating that T.V become a cesspool of vulgarity. I'm just really tired of hearing so many people blame their inability to parent on T.V and videogames.
-
I'm just really tired of hearing so many people blame their inability to parent on T.V and videogames.
I would think that we can all agree on this.
-
I'm just really tired of hearing so many people blame their inability to parent on T.V and videogames.
I would think that we can all agree on this.
Yes.
-
It's very much like the old saying goes "It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all". In order for me to make a different decision I would have to no more about the two people. For instance Christopher Hitchens is ill with cancer, if you were to tell me that he died and the very same day one of his kids died, I would feel more for him. To my knowledge his children have not contributed anywhere near what he has to the world.
Alas, I hold a different view.
Sadder still to watch it die
Than never to have known it
For you, the blind who once could see
The bell tolls for thee...
-
EDIT: This discussion may have paralells to some on religion. In a discussion about the "value", for lack of a better word, of religion in ones life, or society as a whole, it will be unlikely that two sides can come to a real consensus. The two sides being an atheist, and a christian who has had a revelation from god. The later has had a life changing experience that has altered the way they see the world.
Same with being a parent.
This type of thinking is so full of bull. The only change in opinion on children I have ever heard of is that of the opinion toward ones own child. It is typically they hadn't realized how much they would love the child or how much it has changed there priorities. Don't pull the "you'll find out when you have kids" garbage it's different for everyone.
As for the religious gibberish of your post. Any Atheist that I have met that ever wrestled with the notion of god(s) has once realizing that there isn't one has come away a less distrought person, myself included. It was a life changing experience to realize that I didn't have to watch who I am and ask forgiveness for being human. You have no idea how good it feel to realize there is no celestial dictator watch my every move and threatening me with eternal torture.
Well, just FYI, having a child can change your views on children, and it can change your views on children in general. But you seem not to have children, and you have never heard of such a thing happening….so I guess you must be right, and it is just a bunch of “bull”. I guess my own experience, and every other parent I know having the same experience means nothing…. I guess you know better.
And I guess you completely missed the point of the post in regards to religion. My point was that there are certain things in life that can change you drastically, and unless they are experienced, it is difficult to have a true meeting of the minds on that particular subject.
-
EDIT: This discussion may have paralells to some on religion. In a discussion about the "value", for lack of a better word, of religion in ones life, or society as a whole, it will be unlikely that two sides can come to a real consensus. The two sides being an atheist, and a christian who has had a revelation from god. The later has had a life changing experience that has altered the way they see the world.
Same with being a parent.
This type of thinking is so full of bull. The only change in opinion on children I have ever heard of is that of the opinion toward ones own child. It is typically they hadn't realized how much they would love the child or how much it has changed there priorities. Don't pull the "you'll find out when you have kids" garbage it's different for everyone.
As for the religious gibberish of your post. Any Atheist that I have met that ever wrestled with the notion of god(s) has once realizing that there isn't one has come away a less distrought person, myself included. It was a life changing experience to realize that I didn't have to watch who I am and ask forgiveness for being human. You have no idea how good it feel to realize there is no celestial dictator watch my every move and threatening me with eternal torture.
Well, just FYI, having a child can change your views on children, and it can change your views on children in general. But you seem not to have children, and you have never heard of such a thing happening….so I guess you must be right, and it is just a bunch of “bull”. I guess my own experience, and every other parent I know having the same experience means nothing…. I guess you know better.
Well part of that is my poor phrasing; as it was not meant to be all "I have ever heard of". Not really sure why I phrased it that way, as I have heard of differing opinions. I contradict myself in the third sentence of that paragraph where I say "it's different for everyone.". My point was you cannot claim for certainty that having kids will change anything at all about a person's views. The whole you don't understand because you don't have kids arguement is nonsense.
And I guess you completely missed the point of the post in regards to religion. My point was that there are certain things in life that can change you drastically, and unless they are experienced, it is difficult to have a true meeting of the minds on that particular subject.
Then say that and don't use bad analogies. I addressed your point and then I went own to the analogy you used. You compared Atheism with not having children and being Christian with having children, not good comparison at all. I agree having a child is life changing, it changes alot. I take issue with saying the difference between an Atheist and a Christian is the Christian has had a life changing experience.
-
Well, I get his meaning El. For people who find god, it's changes their life dramaticly just like having a child does. What you do with those life changing moments is what defines you. To each his/her own.
-
Well part of that is my poor phrasing; as it was not meant to be all "I have ever heard of". Not really sure why I phrased it that way, as I have heard of differing opinions. I contradict myself in the third sentence of that paragraph where I say "it's different for everyone.". My point was you cannot claim for certainty that having kids will change anything at all about a person's views. The whole you don't understand because you don't have kids arguement is nonsense.
Then say that and don't use bad analogies. I addressed your point and then I went own to the analogy you used. You compared Atheism with not having children and being Christian with having children, not good comparison at all. I agree having a child is life changing, it changes alot. I take issue with saying the difference between an Atheist and a Christian is the Christian has had a life changing experience.
I never claimed with certainty that having kids will change anything about a persons views....just that it did for me, and every single person I know. But there might be one person out there who doesnt change one tiny bit after having kids.....
And if you havent had children, you cant understand what it is like to have children. In an abstract way, maybe you can, but the viscaral and emotional component isnt going to be there. That isnt an arguement, it is fact. Unless you experience it, you cant know. Wether or not it affects you, or how it affects you, is dependent on the individual. The comparison to religion was on that point only.
King obviously understood my points.
-
I'm just really tired of hearing so many people blame TV and video games for their lack of initiative and flat out lazy, self-centered inability to be a proper parent and role model.
I would think that we can all agree on this.
Yes.
I'll agree, albeit with the above edit.