|
|
Post by insanepurpleone on Jul 16, 2011 18:48:55 GMT -5
It's all fine and dandy for parents to let their kids think of their toys as friends and talk to them, sure. But if a child believes in it to too far an extreme.. Well, it would be irresponsible parenting to say the least to allow one's child to risk their life to save a toy. A parent's job is to keep their children safe and tell them what they need to hear in order to maintain their safety. Now, I think creativity and imagination are wonderful things we should foster in children, but there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 16, 2011 18:52:30 GMT -5
It's all fine and dandy for parents to let their kids think of their toys as friends and talk to them, sure. But if a child believes in it to too far an extreme.. Well, it would be irresponsible parenting to say the least to allow one's child to risk their life to save a toy. A parent's job is to keep their children safe and tell them what they need to hear in order to maintain their safety. Now, I think creativity and imagination are wonderful things we should foster in children, but there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. *nods* You're right! It's like qualities, if someone is nice to other people waaay too much eventually it will suffer 'psychological abuse', people will count on you for everything and since you're waaay too nice to say 'no' you'll basically lose your independancy. Fairy tales taken to the extreme are dangerous, being adult is part of understanding how the balance this. How to believe but enough to get inspired and enough to know it's not real. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 18:55:00 GMT -5
There is a difference between using your imagination and believing fantasy is real. It's not a bad thing to do the former without the latter, Sae.  Believing the latter changes how you act, and it can be quite harmful if it becomes an obsession, and will certainly make socialization difficult. There is a reason why parents and other adult figures of authority need to make certain that their children are grounded into reality, especially as they grow older and start making more decisions for themselves. One needs to understand that you can be creative and use imagination without living in a fantasy world. A person can go "Wouldn't it be cool if..." rather than "I believe that..." in regards to these sort of things. I personally think it's better that way. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 18:56:52 GMT -5
Also, I believe that from birth, we're our own people. What I don't like is how some adults assume children aren't real people until age eighteen. That is preposterous! No child is a copy of the parent. All children are individuals finding their way in the world, and they need to be respected and known for who they are, not who their parents/guardians are. Which may be very, very different - I once saw a movie in which the villain had a very sweet-natured, kind-hearted daughter. This girl had all the good qualities the woman lacked. So ask yourself - is it really right for one to judge people based on who their parents are? But Sae, that doesn't even fit into the current argument. Komori wasn't saying that children should be clones of their parents or that parents should try to force them to be. I don't entirely agree with what she said, but you've taken her words and twisted them so as to imply that she somehow thinks children aren't real people. No one in their right mind would ever believe that, and I don't understand how this thought even came into your mind. Children are stupid, there's no arguments there. They learn to be wise as they grow, and who teaches them? Their parents. No parent is perfect, but the majority will do their best to inform their child and then let them make their own choices when they are old enough. My parents took me along to church until I was 13 and legally old enough to stay at home by myself, at which point I made a choice that I wanted to continue to attend church. But if my parents were going before I was 13, then I simply had to go with them. I'm sure if I had kicked and screamed they would have found someone to watch me while they went, but that's beside the point. xD No parent could fail to recognize their child's individuality. Please don't insult those of us who think parents have a right to inform and guide their children by insinuating that we don't think the kid is their own person and deserves to grow as such. A child is born naive for a reason - because they would not survive if they went around doubting and questioning everything their parents tell them. Who is it that has taught you about the world? Who's helped you to stay safe from immediate danger? And mightn't it be that these other niggling things they're trying to impose on you will keep you safe from other kinds of danger, too? And also to teach you about the parts of the world about which you are ignorant. My mother told me you don't stop learning from your parents until they're ready to pass on. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 16, 2011 19:02:44 GMT -5
Personally, I think it's a great mercy when parents help their children in that way. It's not squishing innocence--it's helping them form the tools and ability to cope with reality.
The toy analogy--a toy is just a plush toy. It was created and made by someone's hand. It doesn't move, think, or talk (Furby's and such aside). It doesn't have anything remotely like a soul. A child can love a toy and find comfort in it, but that doesn't change what it is. I still have my favorite teddy bear from when I was a child, as well as a blanket that I've had since I was a baby. They're very nostalgic to me and I find comfort in their presence and existence and the memories I have with them. But that doesn't change the way things are, that doesn't change what they are, reality is still reality.
If this is never taught to kids as they grow, it'll be harder for them to function in the world. The realities of what the world is and isn't... Well the earth is a harsh mistress (to paraphrase a book title). And the child that isn't equipped for that ability to cope with reality will find it harder to function in a world that goes increasingly against what their desired world is actually like. They'll find themselves alienated, and one day something will cause their entire reality to be shaken to the core, as the world they came to believe existed is shown not to.
Now, many can argue religion is no different in that it's irrational and based off of no evidence (beyond annecdotal and non-scientific). But to that point, religion is still something generally accepted by society.
Either way, to me, it seems more cruel to allow someone to continue in a way of viewing things that will result in a crushing end for the person than simply help guide them. As many have said, that's not losing your sense of wonder and amazement. It might be losing innocence only in where innocence is defined by a lack of knowledge and understanding.
That's my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avery on Jul 16, 2011 19:06:11 GMT -5
On the other hand, consider that the parent never tells their child the toy isn't alive, and continues to let them believe that. How much more crushed will that child be when they lose that toy? Say it gets broken or destroyed? How much more crushing would it be to get rid of toys when you have too many? Or, to be dramatic here, will the child rush into the street to save the "life" of a toy they consider to be alive? I don't think there's anything wrong with a parent correcting the realities of their own child. For starters, it's their child, they should be allowed to teach them the beliefs they want them to have. Sometimes I think some parents go to far, and reality-checks can sometimes be quite soul-crushing. But also I think some parents don't go far enough, letting their child run headlong into bad situations without the proper dose of reality (it's rarely safe to be naive). Still, it's the parents' right to mold their child, for better or worse. Makes me glad I'm not a parent, though.  One could compare a toy, in a sense, to a person or a pet. Ignoring the rest of your post as others have already touched on it-- and honestly, I don't quite know how to respectfully approach your second paragraph-- but... this is statement is a bit perplexing to me. Scratch that, completely perplexing. A toy is not a person. It is not a pet. It's just... not. Even if a child projects a personality on a toy-- treats it as real-- it never gains any cognition, it never breathes, it never has feelings. Sure, when I was little, I would give my dolls personalities and it was fun and yay. But in the end, they were toys. Plastic. I wanted them to be real sometimes, I thought it would be super cool, but they weren't. They existed as I made them exist. And I truly do not know a single child who ever believes their toys are "real", in that while most kids will give personalities to the their toys, they know in the end that the toys aren't breathing, living creatures. So I just don't see how the comparison between a lump of plastic and fabric and say-- a human, or a cat-- can be made. It just makes no sense to me. Humans and animals have free will. They think. They eat, they sleep. Toys... never do that. They aren't alive and there's no way they could be alive, if you approach it with any bit of logic. ... yeah. This part of your post just bothered me a bit, Sae. If a child is willing to give their life for a toy, I'm sorry, but something is wrong. A parent telling their kid a toy isn't real/alive/whatever because they don't want the kid to say, jump in front of a car to save the toy, is not being cruel or stifling their individuality. That parent is being responsible and stopping their kid from getting hurt... or growing up to eventually have that reality shattered in a far less gentle way. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 19:11:34 GMT -5
Yeah, well, I'm sorry if I offended any of you, but I think you're all trying to change my world view here. Remember in another thread how it was noted that it wasn't very nice to dismiss someone else's belief as unhealthy? This is kind of how I feel.
Look, I believe in fairies, mermaids, and the Velveteen Rabbit philosophy. That's just how I am. And I am perfectly happy! I think it might even be the reason I'm so nice, because I don't just see the beauty, I believe it.
So stop. Please. This isn't a thread for people to try to convert others. I thought we were arguing the point of "should parents try to change their children into someone they aren't?".
I just want my beliefs to be respected, that's all. Especially since I would never think once of trying to make any of you think the way I did. We're all different people. I should never have started this topic; it's turned into a gang-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avery on Jul 16, 2011 19:14:18 GMT -5
Yeah, well, I'm sorry if I offended any of you, but I think you're all trying to change my world view here. Remember in another thread how it was noted that it wasn't very nice to dismiss someone else's belief as unhealthy? This is kind of how I feel. Look, I believe in fairies, mermaids, and the Velveteen Rabbit philosophy. That's just how I am. And I am perfectly happy! I think it might even be the reason I'm so nice, because I don't just see the beauty, I believe it. So stop. Please. This isn't a thread for people to try to convert others. I thought we were arguing the point of "should parents try to change their children into someone they aren't?". I just want my beliefs to be respected, that's all. Especially since I would never think once of trying to make any of you think the way I did. We're all different people. I should never have started this topic; it's turned into a gang-up. Sae, honey, I don't think anyone's trying to offend each other, but the fact is, you put this in Discussion & Debates. In this board, people debate. Present dissenting views. It doesn't mean they're trying to convince people to do a certain thing or believe a certain way. Arguing an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean people are demeaning your beliefs. They're just presenting theirs and, as people do in a good debate, bringing up points of yours that they don't understand, challenging them. They expect a rebuttal, logic and reasoning to combat theirs, reasons why you believe in something as opposed to just that you do. It's not to offend you. It's just because that's what people do in a debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 16, 2011 19:16:38 GMT -5
Sae, no one is trying to change your personal view. You raised this thread as a question in a discussion and debate board. You give your honest opinion of what you think, and people respond with their honest opinions. In a thread like this, it's easy to feel that your personal beliefs are under attack if people disagree with you but that's not the case. People are talking the same way you are, about what they think of the topic and how things ought to be.
No one is ganging up on you, it's just not everyone agrees with your points. As you respond and debate others views, they'll also respond and debates yours. No one is personally going against you or trying to get you to change who you are, they just disagree with your world view as you disagree with theirs.
If you'd like, we can lock and move this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 19:17:24 GMT -5
Yeah, well, I'm sorry if I offended any of you, but I think you're all trying to change my world view here. Remember in another thread how it was noted that it wasn't very nice to dismiss someone else's belief as unhealthy? This is kind of how I feel. Look, I believe in fairies, mermaids, and the Velveteen Rabbit philosophy. That's just how I am. And I am perfectly happy! I think it might even be the reason I'm so nice, because I don't just see the beauty, I believe it. So stop. Please. This isn't a thread for people to try to convert others. I thought we were arguing the point of "should parents try to change their children into someone they aren't?". I just want my beliefs to be respected, that's all. Especially since I would never think once of trying to make any of you think the way I did. We're all different people. I should never have started this topic; it's turned into a gang-up. Sae, honey, I don't think anyone's trying to offend each other, but the fact is, you put this in Discussion & Debates. In this board, people debate. Present dissenting views. It doesn't mean they're trying to convince people to do a certain thing or believe a certain way. Arguing an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean people are demeaning your beliefs. They're just presenting theirs and, as people do in a good debate, bringing up points of yours that they don't understand, challenging them. It's not to offend you. It's just because that's what people do in a debate. Oh...thank you. And anyway, I am sorry, Komori. I guess I kind of interepreted what you said the wrong way. That being said, I think the new question I want to present is: do you think parents should try to change their children into a different person than they are? I think not, because I think it's akin to programming them like you would a robot, and a violation of the child's right to be themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jul 16, 2011 19:22:49 GMT -5
Let's go with the new question, then. What's changing them into something they're not? Trying to make them a musician when they hate music, or insisting they learn certain skills and subjects when the child hates it (like math, history, etc). Is a child that likes to pick his nose and eat the boogers being himself and the parent forcing him to be someone they're not when they put a stop to it? Is teaching manners to a child programming them? Where do you draw the line?
As I'm sure Sarn can tell you, the search for identity goes on well into the 20s and beyond for people. So is it programming and forcing or helping and guiding?
Also, what "right" do children have to be their own person. You may want to clarify that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avery on Jul 16, 2011 19:28:57 GMT -5
Well, on the new question:
From the moment they come into this world, parents have influence over their children. To think that kids have a set-in-stone personality out of the gate, that they're defined from the moment they're born, is likely erroneous. The environment a child is raised in-- and hence, their parents-- shape their personalities. That doesn't mean the parents are molding the kids into robots, but kids are impressionable. They listen to their parents, model themselves after what they see.
So that leaves us with, as Stal said, things like... say, making them play piano if they hate it, having them try out for soccer when they're bad at it. These things are minor; I don't see them as programming. It's helping kids explore their options, see what's out there, test outside their comfort zone, which is a pretty integral part of growing up. If kids always did what they wanted, they would grow up with so many missed opportunities. Not to mention, life isn't always pleasant. Even as an adult-- heck, especially as an adult-- one doesn't always get to do exactly what they please and nothing else. So teaching kids early that sometimes there are things you must do that you don't want to is extremely important to them growing into a mature, healthy adult with coping skills.
So at what extent does it change from helping kids grow to 'programming'? That's probably a thin line, and in any case, kids aren't robots. Short of brainwashing, I doubt there's a way a parent can truly program a kid into being a certain way. True personalities will always come out, sooner or later, as the child grows and grapples with his or her real identity-- a process that is lifelong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 19:32:21 GMT -5
As I'm sure Sarn can tell you, the search for identity goes on well into the 20s and beyond for people. So is it programming and forcing or helping and guiding? I like your point here, actually, because the question kind of needs a few definitions that can't be assumed. A person's personality starts emerging very early on in life, but it's sort of ... shifts as we go through different phases and influences. The bulk of the personality doesn't emerge until the late teens (which is why teen years are always so horrid, because you're trying to find who you are and where you fit) and by the time you're about 20 your major traits have settled down, but there are a lot of smaller ones to be settled on, and even after that sometimes large events can dramatically change who we are. The point of all of this being that children, while they have their own unique personality, are not who they will be. xD I kind of lost my train of thought so I'll stop there and think some more. Thinking is better than talking, IMO. xDDD |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 19:50:13 GMT -5
Also, what "right" do children have to be their own person. You may want to clarify that. It is a natural right that every person is born with. |
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jul 16, 2011 19:51:22 GMT -5
Well, if we take the new question...
I think how a kid is raised is a combination of who they are (genetics) and what environment they grow up in. There are some traits that are just inherent to the child. (For instance, one trait that seems to show up in all of my siblings is hard-headedness. I'm no exception. xD ) There are other that are affected by environment. A combination of both is what leads the person to what they are today.
There's always inevitably going to be some parental molding. Part of it is the safety reason. Some things are better for kids to learn the hard way ("scraped knees" in this regard), but some things are just better for the kid to not have to experience the hard way, like they were about to drink a household poison.
Another is to allow the kid time to experience things while they're still young. When I was a kid, I didn't want to play the piano. I thought it was too hard. So my parents didn't force me. But in hindsight, I wish they did. It would've been absolutely invaluable to anything musical in the future, or even in general musical enjoyment. Would it have been molding? Maybe. But I really wouldn't have minded it.
So yeah, there are varying degrees. But there's always going to be some programming. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
