Originally posted by inimalist
[b]babies eat food they don't like: really? I can think of many times hearing parents talk about their infants as picky eaters. Also, very young children have no individual capacity to prepare food, thus they are quite limited in their other options.Hit something that always returns: babies aren't born with a developed motor cortex. Movement like that acts to refine their motor control and integrate sensory experiences into a single percept (ie, proprioception, vision and touch when hitting something).
They don't understand: The actions of children are not caused by their inability to understand. I'm writing a paper on autism and language development right now, and from some of the insight I received through researching this, it seems that a large number of behaviours seen in children are there to increase communication and interaction with the world around them.
short of making the 40 year old man a low functioning vegetable with the capacity of an infant, he will always be less helpless than a child.
he may be helpless, but the child will always be more so given they are smaller, weaker, more prone to injury, less capable of reasoning etc.
the stress response you are speaking about is an instant rush of cortisol. In dangerous situations it serves to reduce stress, increase performance, and in this case would produce a higher likelihood of escape.
in a person who is being tortured, cortisol would be released constantly, which would then lead to the problems with stress and anxiety.
Research similar to that done with Little Albert has shown that infants understand fear quite well.
Any child would be intimidated by a group of large men with bats based on simple instinctual drives.
well, let me give you a simple example (I need to get back to my paper, though I'm sure this will continue).
1) You walk outside. You are hit in the head by something. You have no idea what it is. Each time you walk outside you are hit by it.
2) You walk outside, someone hits you. You can see them outside and learn new behaviours to avoid what is happening.
which situation is going to cause you less stress? In the first, you have no idea what is happening, and thus will have a high level of what is called cognitive dissonance. Recent research has also shown that lack of understanding or control is related to conspiratorial thinking, so in situation 1) you are likely to start attributing getting hit to other, unrelated things, or just accepting it as part of reality.
Or in the second one, where your fear of getting hit produces behaviour that is able to minimize cognitive dissonance. [/B]
Sure, ive got a nephew who eats almost anything for about 5 minutes then spits it out randomly and at other times wont eat it at all, or will eat it, either they dont like the food or their just random.
But they dont know that their developing their motor cortex, their simply doing it since they dont understand
Yes but as i said above, whatever the purpose, they dont understand it, they dont know what their doing is developing them.
It does not matter how prone to injury the guy is, ime sure being smashed repeatedly by 4 guys with steel bats will kill any man. Its unlikely a man while being beaten by 4 guys is going to be trying to reason with them at the same time either, certainly not this cowardly 40 year old guy who is the subject of my example.
Can you show me this "little albert" research please, I find it hard to belive that if I was standing in front of a baby with a steel bat it would realise and anticipate a possible beating or even contemplate such an action.
In the example where the person is fearful, the person is likely to be more bothered than someone who does not know, especially when their of such little understanding as a baby who would likely forget that it was hit given a few hours and continue with whatever it was it was doing. Like on the images a page back, pete has blood around his face yet does not seem to be interested at all, not even troubled, if it was an older child, blood around your face would be more than upsetting, especially if you have a weak stomach.
Originally posted by Kosta
That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
Not really, what good is sympathy to someone who is beaten senseless and then killed? they neither feel nor worry about the pain to them and are dead so the sympathy is not worth while anyway.
Baby pete did not likely understand his misfortune either, a baby would not understand a misfortune such as that.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Sure, ive got a nephew who eats almost anything for about 5 minutes then spits it out randomly and at other times wont eat it at all, or will eat it, either they dont like the food or their just random.
Or maybe your single example is meaningless against dozens of examples showing the opposite.
Originally posted by Burning thought
But they dont know that their developing their motor cortex, their simply doing it since they [b]dont understandYes but as i said above, whatever the purpose, they dont understand it, they dont know what their doing is developing them.[/B]
Yes they do. Have you ever heard of Little Albert?
If you haven't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jones/
The thing is, babies understand fear. Babies can learn. They can suffer plenty.
Originally posted by Burning thoughtIt wasn't about sympathy, it was about whether the kid was "poor". Which it obviously was, seeing as he got beaten to death.
Not really, what good is sympathy to someone who is beaten senseless and then killed? they neither feel nor worry about the pain to them and are dead so the sympathy is not worth while anyway.Baby pete did not likely understand his misfortune either, a baby would not understand a misfortune such as that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or maybe your single example is meaningless against dozens of examples showing the opposite.Yes they do. Have you ever heard of Little Albert?
If you haven't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jones/The thing is, babies understand fear. Babies can learn. They can suffer plenty.
Or maybe these dozens of examples have yet to be shown, and no its not meaningless even if there were a 100 examples....
your trying to argue that a baby is thinking to itself "lets develop my motor cortex today"? if not then your "yes they do" did not make sense to me ,but ill read those through.
edit
After looking it through, it does not seem that there is any information that helps your side of the argument from this little albert test, all it shows is that the kid remembered that having objects put in front of him in this room meant that perhaps something loud was going to happen, my argument was based around that a baby is not sitting there thinking and worrying about something happening before it does.
Regardless of any input from this test, one child in this test can hardly be takenas behavior for every one ever to exist or baby peter for that matter.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It wasn't about sympathy, it was about whether the kid was "poor". Which it obviously was, seeing as he got beaten to death.
That does not make sense to me, how can he be "poor", the only meaing that would make sense is in wealth. Which ofc is not the case, you mean poor as in "pity" but saying he is pity, does not make sense does it... which is why I dont understand you saying the kid was pity....
Also from wikia what it means:
Pity implies tender or sometimes slightly contemptuous sorrow or empathy for a person or people in misery, pain, or distress.
This is my understanding of it as well, and technically the baby is under none of those things since it is now dead.
Originally posted by Burning thought
That does not make sense to me, how can he be "poor", the only meaing that would make sense is in wealth. Which ofc is not the case, you mean poor as in "pity" but saying he is pity, does not make sense does it... which is why I dont understand you saying the kid was pity....
Maybe you should be quiet if you don't know the basics of the language you try to communicate with.
14. unfortunate; hapless: The poor dog was limping.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe you should be quiet if you don't know the basics of the language you try to communicate with.14. unfortunate; hapless: The poor dog was limping.
Maybe you should be quiet (although technically you should learn your language your using, since ime making no sound that you can possibly hear by replying in this thread) and learn to read through posts, thats basically what my wikia article said, but is baby pete limping/unfotunate now?
no hes died, so technically he is not limping or in pain now....so your not making sense either way.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Maybe you should be quiet (although technically you should learn your language your using, since ime making no sound that you can possibly hear by replying in this thread) and learn to read through posts, thats basically what my wikia article said, but is baby pete limping/unfotunate now?no hes died, so technically he is not limping or in pain now....so your not making sense either way.
Originally posted by Raoul
this is all over the news over here... its tragic... that poor kid...
This is what you replied to.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Not really poor kid ,i cant imagine he knew much of anything if he was battered senseless to death at that age
This is what you said
You very clearly stated that you do not think the kid is "unfortunate" (as the word is defined). This is what the argument was about for two pages. You argued babies don't feel the same pain...did you really just miss that and argue for arguments sake?
Your argument that he is not poor because he is dead now and can't feel pain is a recent development. And though I tend to agree that he doesn't mind at the moment, it is still a "poor" kid, due to the circumstances of its life.
I dont see or understand how it can still be "poor" if its dead, that does not make sense at all since its not unfortunate, especially not from its own point of view, so why pity?
I still argue babies dont feel the same pains in all areas that an adult or otherwise would, but my first comment was nothing to do with my arguments the moment.
Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont see or understand how it can still be "poor" if its dead, that does not make sense at all since its not unfortunate, especially not from its own point of view, so why pity?I still argue babies dont feel the same pains in all areas that an adult or otherwise would, but my first comment was nothing to do with my arguments the moment.
You do, indeed, not understand what I am saying. The kid was poor because his life was very horrible.
So, you are trying to change the argument. It is silly to argue with you and I will stop it now, as you are either majorly mentally impaired or trying to be aggravating on purpose.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You do, indeed, not understand what I am saying. The kid was poor because his life was very horrible.So, you are trying to change the argument. It is silly to argue with you and I will stop it now, as you are either majorly mentally impaired or trying to be aggravating on purpose.
But not poor any longer, thus "poor baby peter" is imo now wrong, since he is no longer tormented.
Ive not changed any argument at all, my argument with inimalist has been around whether or not babies feel the same pain as adults or older toddlers mentally, not just physically and overall, who would be more important to sympathise, my first comment such as "not really poor" was taking on the fact that he is now dead wich imo is not "poor" since to me death is not a terrible especially in his case where he was tormented beforehand.
or you are majorly mentally impaired and your impairment leaves you confused and eventually irritated and flustered because of your lack of understanding.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive said nothing in this thread stupid, your the one who claimed a baby is going to sit there and contemplate developing its motor cortex durlaugh
Actually I never claimed that. What I did prove was that a baby can learn and feel fear.
You've also tried this unfortunate tactic before.