Originally posted by inimalistThese things that you mention will arise anywhere, and actually are taught against best by parents. They can be strengthened by parents too but gangs prove that humans children seek out a sense of family even if they are deprived of it. Gangs made up of orphans have these negative ideals and they are not a product of the home environment. Child soldiers are also not a product of the home environment. I'm sure you'd agree that they contain extra strength versions of all those things that you spoke of. I know that many parents are not good to their children but there are many that want to teach their children how to behave with consideration for everything and everyone. Please share the name of the community where the children are raised by the state and given individual treatment that is based off of their individual personalities, likes and dislikes. This place must read to each child every night and make each child's favorite meal every now and then showing these children that they are worthy of special treatment, and boosting their self esteem. All while assuring the children that them having no parents is a good thing. If such a place were to exist what would keep the children that came out of it from feeling superior and teaching others that they are just that? The bias and racism would simply evolve into something controlled by the state.
look not only at North America, but around the world. Biases, misinformation, racism, prejudice, all of those things, are essentially a product of the home environment.
Originally posted by inimalistYou're right here but wouldn't parental involvement strengthen the states ability to promote positive views and erase any negative views that the state MAY hold?
In fact, when it comes to issues like racism, there is abundant evidence that the state has the most power to effect people's views in a positive way. While it is almost certain that a racist parent will have a racist child, the greatest way to prevent that child from coming to identify with that hate is through exposure to other cultures and working with people of different ethnicities in public school.
Originally posted by inimalistUnless you're suggesting that a 10- 15 year old can whip an adults ass, I think you're mistaken. Not getting your ass whipped by your parent is more important than a peer group. If you're trying to go to the club with your kid, I can see how they would take you for a joke as an authority figure, and how your influence would be minute.
by about the age of... 8?, or maybe a little later, you, as a parent (if your child is developing normally) will have little if any influence over your kid. At this point, peer group becomes far more important.
Originally posted by inimalistA caring parent: Cares for an infant with the utmost concern, making sure that their child is healthy AND happy. Spending time talking to baby and playing with baby stimulates a child's mind. Makes investments based on specific strengths and weaknesses. A parent will boost their child's confidence by celebrating their gifts (instruments and sports) and assist them in overcoming their weaknesses.( paying for tutors) Be a source of positive re-enforcement during stressful times. No matter what their age children seek guidance from adults that they know care greatly for them as they feel that this adult would not betray their trust.
You are a) overstimating the role that parents play in the development of the social persona of a child, and
I'm sorry but I think all these things are very important in developing a positive social persona. ( I just noticed that you didn't say a positive social persona.doh I hope that's what you meant)
Originally posted by inimalistRacism is taught by peers, period. It's taught everywhere as well. A strong self-esteem is important to overcome racism more than exposure to "the real-world" A person with a low self-esteem is more likely to embrace an idea that they are superior to somebody by default no matter what their upbringing.
b) you wrongly have assumed that children learn racism someplace that isn't their home. Sure, there will be obvious examples of nazis who come from a good home, but 90% of the time, these ideas come from being isolated from the world around the child. So, it [b]is the family that is most at risk of passing this hatred onto the child, and it is society at large that is able to give them real world experience necessary to overcome these biases they face at home. [/B]
When you say 'Nazis that come from a good home' this is the type of thing that made me start this thread. Such a statement is an oxymoron. How is it that a home that produces Nazis could be defined as good? All we know about the home is that it produced Nazis. I could see if the home produced some hard workers that excelled in their field of interests. We would deny that a home that produced Nazi's isn't good.
You can thank the media for that because they always portray the homes of criminal children as good homes when NEGLECT is more likely when the parents are consumed with making their homes APPEAR good materialistically. Neglect is as damaging as abuse perhaps more so because have we not heard cases where children will misbehave just for the attention of punishment? The thing that made me start this thread is the growing idea that if our kids have a TV, cell phone, video game, or computer, and maybe even a nanny for meals, that they can NEVER be neglected. It's an outright lie as they are in more danger being allowed to regulate the media themselves, with no adult supervision.
Originally posted by inimalistA person that chooses to do things that MAY damage them can HOPE that they won't be damaged. That's gambling and not the same as denial. The denial about addiction is different. Nobody who is addicted to something has total control over themselves anymore as the thing that they are addicted to has ceased to be a want and is now a need. Now it is impossible to determine if this is what they really WANT anymore because the brain has been re-programed to want this new need fulfilled. A parent is in denial if they suggest to their kids that any kind of addiction is a GOOD thing. Addiction is BAD no matter what a person is addicted to.
that is hardly denial though. Do you think everyone who smokes or drinks is unaware of the consequences? Do you not think that free people may choose, in full knowledge of the consequences, to smoke or drink or do drugs (in fact, I present myself as evidence)?
Originally posted by inimalistActually I'd like to remove any moral implications and simply confront the rationality of accepting the idea that the media is something that is generally safe for children. The adults of this generation are extremely addicted to it and there's overwhelming evidence of that. It can give parents a chance to rest but if it's potentially addictive then isn't it dangerous to allow kids to indulge to their hearts content? Giving a child vodka would also give a parent a chance to rest, but the danger in that is obvious. How much denial is necessary to completely ignore the dangers of potentially addictive things?
It seems you are more trying to make a moralistic statement against certain behavious, and then claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with this stance is either ignorant or in denial of the consequences. Sure, we can agree that racism is bad, I hardly think people are racists because they just haven't heard the data about DNA. In fact, human psychology suggests that if you were to confront a racist with that data, they would become more assured of their position (counter-intuitive, i know, but it is the same phenomenon seen in legal arbitration or even just debate, just discussing your views with people tends to radicalize you further)
Originally posted by inimalistThe family unit is poisonous to a child's social growth, huh? I'd agree about some families but cmon man, all family units are not about being a power center rather than a support center. You must be thinking about the Godfather or something.
maybe you are in denial about how socially poisonous centering power on the family unit is?
Originally posted by inimalistYes I can keep things out of the reach of my child. As long as he's under my supervision I could keep him from many many things. If I was adamant we could become Amish or something. I personally have no intention of overprotecting my son from the world but I will protect him from things that aren't for children. For example I've explained to him that adults cuss and that children aren't supposed to. This way he does not believe that adults that cuss are bad and understands that as a child it's an inappropriate behavior. I've taught him that cursing is wrong for anyone to do though, (cursing at people maliciously) and I don't do that. I don't shelter him from reality but I also don't encourage him to believe that he is on equal grounds with adults in any way.
EDIT: sort of related to what you were posting in response to other people, do you actually believe you, as a parent, have the ability to stop your child from watching porn if they want to? really? when you were a kid, did you have any problems hiding things from your parents?
Also my Dad was very effective in finding and removing any magazines or flicks I tried to hide. He even talked to me (against my will) about the dangers in expecting women to behave or look like the women that appeared in fantasy media. I came to understand what he meant and I'm glad that he taught me that beauty fades away with age and that the women in pictures would never age. Today I respect women as individuals equal to men in value and potential, and I thank my Dad for teaching me with his words and actions. As an adult I watch porn fantasy, but I also enjoy married life reality.
Originally posted by RobtardNo he'd actually throw the stuff away. Pissed me off too. When I got married I gave a collection of about 250 magazines to my brother. His girlfriend didn't approve so he told my dad to " take care of them " Dad took them to the dump and had them recycled. 😠 😠 😠
He took them cos he wanted to wank.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Also my Dad was very effective in finding and removing any magazines or flicks I tried to hide. He even talked to me (against my will) about the dangers in expecting women to behave or look like the women that appeared in fantasy media. I came to understand what he meant and I'm glad that he taught me that beauty fades away with age and that the women in pictures would never age. Today I respect women as individuals equal to men in value and potential, and I thank my Dad for teaching me with his words and actions. As an adult I watch porn fantasy, but I also enjoy married life reality.
Originally posted by The MISTER
He would "clean" our rooms while we were out of the house.
I'll give you a proper response, but I think this might highlight where you and I disagree.
This and the idea of whupping you child, to me, is sort of wrong. If you use intimidation, fear, distrust and restriction of freedom to get your child to comply, regardless of anything else, the lessons you are teaching aren't "be responsible", they are "fear those who have authority over you and comply because they will hurt you".
Originally posted by King Kandy
Thus proving the internet was the great liberating invention of our time.
yes, yes indeed
Originally posted by inimalistChildren can destroy themselves when treated as though they are adults. I understood that my Dad owned the room and had every right to everything in it. He had my best interests in mind and I knew that and trusted him even when he made me angry. I don't like to spank my son but the police will beat him if he disobeys them with far less regard for his safety. Why should I act as though explanation works with a three year old when it doesn't. I don't want my son to fear me but I do want him to fear certain consequences. A child that keeps playing with the electrical socket should have the danger explained and adding the consequence of a spanking for playing with it can create an awareness of danger associated with the outlet. Having no FEAR of the outlet might have a parent burying their child. The only things my son gets spanked for are direct disobedience, doing something that could get him killed more than once, and doing something illegal more than once. He's never spanked for anything that he didn't know better than to do. There are other punishments for offences that aren't life threatening like restriction for poor grades.... etc. etc. The other authority figures will beat my son and tazer him if he disobeys them. Then they will jail him like an out of control animal with the rest of the out of control animals and they may beat him more there. I'd rather be the one who disciplines my son with physical punishment than have him believe that there is no such thing. He's seven now, behaves wonderfully, and doesn't get spankings despite being very open an honest about what he thinks. He's never gotten a spanking for telling the truth about something he did even if it was bad. I agree with you though in the case of parents who beat their child for everything. I am against that entirely.
I'll give you a proper response, but I think this might highlight where you and I disagree.This and the idea of whupping you child, to me, is sort of wrong. If you use intimidation, fear, distrust and restriction of freedom to get your child to comply, regardless of anything else, the lessons you are teaching aren't "be responsible", they are "fear those who have authority over you and comply because they will hurt you".
Edit: As a black man my Dad taught me when I was young to never talk back to the police because they can kill you and get away with it. He told me that his dad taught him that. As an adult I know there was some truth to that teaching that lasts even up to 2011. The authority WILL hurt you if you don't obey them. It's a fact. Otherwise how could they have any authority?
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, yes indeed
oh, dude, don't get me wrong...
saying the "state" might be a better parent is not my goal...
I actually don't really have a solution here other than to say parents can be, and in parts of the world, are much more damaging.
Seriously, when I get a chance (and I'm not just watching the venture bros) I will bring the science behind developmental psych into this debate, but anthoer main point I would make is that you are creating a huge strawman. I really don't think I need to prove my anti-state stance on these boards, but I will if you want. All I am saying is that, in a perfect situation, we could grow beyond not only state control, but also family control.
I do think you introduce a lot of false dicotomies in the argument you have made against mine. I agree with you entirely, the state, as it exists now, is in no better position to raise your kids than you are.
Originally posted by inimalistMy bad...I'm not trying to jump down your throat or twist what you were saying. I just wanted to show how you and others may have ideas that have been promoted by the media e.g. the "good home" example that you used. Also I agree that parents have been and can be very very damaging. I just want to bring attention to the more subtle dangers that our viewing habits and behaviors present. As of now I think people are in denial that there is ANY danger in something as harmless as a cell phone or TV set.
oh, dude, don't get me wrong...saying the "state" might be a better parent is not my goal...
I actually don't really have a solution here other than to say parents can be, and in parts of the world, are much more damaging.
Seriously, when I get a chance (and I'm not just watching the venture bros) I will bring the science behind developmental psych into this debate, but anthoer main point I would make is that you are creating a huge strawman. I really don't think I need to prove my anti-state stance on these boards, but I will if you want. All I am saying is that, in a perfect situation, we could grow beyond not only state control, but also family control.
I do think you introduce a lot of false dicotomies in the argument you have made against mine. I agree with you entirely, the state, as it exists now, is in no better position to raise your kids than you are.
Re: Re: How important is denial in 2011?
Originally posted by skekUngIf the only person I cared about was myself I wouldn't care what anyone else thought, and I'd take that advice.
Why should any one else discuss? This seems to be an issue you need to resolve for yourself.
Since I care about others happiness I want to see if this thing that I think might be dangerous, is. If it is, then I want to know if it's preventable. If I had cancer though I'm sure some person would say that it's an issue I should resolve for myself. People can have some pretty extreme stances on how much help they give others.