|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 21:31:43 GMT -5
That... doesn't really answer the question. It doesn't feel good, but I don't see how the right to "be yourself" stems from that. :I Agreed. A lot of things feel bad but are actually good ... like exercise, or like learning to ride a horse. xDDD The same can be said of, say, weaning a child off childish behaviours. (note, not 'childlike' behaviours. I'm talking irrational things) I think my answer would be that if people weren't themselves, then this world would probably still be prehistoric because whoever thought of the agriculture idea would have kept it to himself because he knew if he told he would be being himself. Cue my train of logical thought. Here is the argument I believe you are trying to propose: Premise 1: All children are born with the right to be themselves Premise 2: Forcing someone to be someone/something they're not would violate this right Conclusion: Forcing a child to be someone/something they're not is wrong. I believe that's about the sum of it, but correct me if I'm wrong. Now, let's take each premise in turn. Premise one: All children are born with the right to be themselves In formal logic, if you want to draw a conclusion from a set of premises (which is exactly what an argument is) you need to make sure your premises are based on sound evidence. This premise is, I think, the one most of us are having trouble with, because a) it is not based on any known evidence, and b) it is too vague. It does not define what it means to be oneself, nor what aspects constitute "self". Your premise here makes the assumption that a) everyone inherrently knows about this right of all children and b) anything a child wants to do or be is being themself. These two assumptions must therefore be backed up by evidence and definitions. The first assumption falls flat on it's face because I personally don't emperically know or believe that such a right exists, nor is a right recognized by any law or statue. The second assumption is fairly unreasonable, because the child could use it to do whatever they wanted, a lot of which would be highly unhealthy. To use Nat's example, they could quote doing drugs as being themself, and if parents were to respect this right, they would have no choice but to let their kid get high. Premise 2: Forcing someone to be someone/something they're not would violate this rightIf we assume that your first premise is utterly and totally true, then there isn't actually anything wrong with this premise except for the fact that it remains too vague. What, exactly, constitutes "forcing" and how do you define where the limit of "being yourself" begins and ends? Does this right of all children extend to eating vegetables or to wanting to learn to use firearms? Basically, Sae, no one is saying that your arguments are not true, what we're asking is for you to expand on them and justify them in a way that makes logical sense. Provide some evidence to back up your ideas and define the parameters of the concepts you're using so we all know we're on the same page when we talk about "being yourself", because right now everyone here will have a different definition of what that means.[/quote] I don't mean drugs or healthy eating at all, Sarn. I mean personality in the sense of taste in clothes, music, the outdoors, view of the world, religion/similar (or none), and favorite foods/animals/video games - or not liking video games at all. Whether science or art appeals more. What they want in romance - or not wanting romance at all. Opinion on having children (and yes, children DO think about this, otherwise the baby doll market would vanish). Opinions on any form of storytelling. That's what I mean. Every person is born with the right to have their own unique views on all of the above. And I can't see why anyone would think that shouldn't be a right. Again, I'm not saying this is any of you who think that at all, because I doubt you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jul 16, 2011 21:44:30 GMT -5
Well, I don't think children focus on having CHILDREN children, I mean, they only know what they see, which is basically when their parents are at home. They don't think about working a job when raising a child, the sleepless nights, etc.
And everyone is entitled to their opinion, since I think that is what you're tryiing to put across. But sometimes their opinions -are- based off naivete. It's doesn't make them less valid, an opinion's an opinion, but it doesn't change the facts.
A child's favourite food might be potato chips. Does that mean they're entitled to having it everyday? No, and the parent is suppoed to reinforce that. They're free to enjoy potato chips all they want, the parent is trying to instill the concept of moderation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 21:48:24 GMT -5
child's favourite food might be potato chips. Does that mean they're entitled to having it everyday? No, and the parent is suppoed to reinforce that. They're free to enjoy potato chips all they want, the parent is trying to instill the concept of moderation. No, they shouldn't eat chips all the time, but they're entitled to that preference. From a very young age, my favorite food was actually catfish. Now it's korma (which is Indian food). |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jul 16, 2011 21:52:04 GMT -5
child's favourite food might be potato chips. Does that mean they're entitled to having it everyday? No, and the parent is suppoed to reinforce that. They're free to enjoy potato chips all they want, the parent is trying to instill the concept of moderation. No, they shouldn't eat chips all the time, but they're entitled to that preference. From a very young age, my favorite food was actually catfish. Now it's korma (which is Indian food). Well, yes, which is kinda my point. They have their own likes and dislikes and no parent is gonna say, "you can't like potato chips". They might say, "Potato chips are bad for you". It doesn't mean you can't like them, it means that as long as you like them, you need to keep in mind that they're full of salt and oil and etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 16, 2011 22:13:24 GMT -5
I don't mean drugs or healthy eating at all, Sarn. I mean personality in the sense of taste in clothes, music, the outdoors, view of the world, religion/similar (or none), and favorite foods/animals/video games - or not liking video games at all. Whether science or art appeals more. What they want in romance - or not wanting romance at all. Opinion on having children (and yes, children DO think about this, otherwise the baby doll market would vanish). Opinions on any form of storytelling. That's what I mean. Every person is born with the right to have their own unique views on all of the above. And I can't see why anyone would think that shouldn't be a right. Again, I'm not saying this is any of you who think that at all, because I doubt you do. Okay, in what earthly scenario are you finding parents who go, "Your favorite animal is a dog? Preposterous! My favorite animal is a horse! Your favorite animal should be a horse!!" Favorite music? Favorite foods? Seriously, what parent is that much of a control freak that they insist on dictating a child's personal preferences to the most mundane things?  I mean, sure, there are plenty of parents who disapprove of their child listening to rap music or playing violent video games. But that's so common it's become a cliche. What's your point, Sae? Why in the world did this thread go from believing in magic Narnia portals to potato chips and catfish?? |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 16, 2011 22:29:48 GMT -5
What's your point, Sae? Why in the world did this thread go from believing in magic Narnia portals to potato chips and catfish?? *nods* I wonder the same thing! It's confusing...what are we debating exactly?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 22:38:41 GMT -5
I don't mean drugs or healthy eating at all, Sarn. I mean personality in the sense of taste in clothes, music, the outdoors, view of the world, religion/similar (or none), and favorite foods/animals/video games - or not liking video games at all. Whether science or art appeals more. What they want in romance - or not wanting romance at all. Opinion on having children (and yes, children DO think about this, otherwise the baby doll market would vanish). Opinions on any form of storytelling. That's what I mean. Every person is born with the right to have their own unique views on all of the above. And I can't see why anyone would think that shouldn't be a right. Again, I'm not saying this is any of you who think that at all, because I doubt you do. Okay, in what earthly scenario are you finding parents who go, "Your favorite animal is a dog? Preposterous! My favorite animal is a horse! Your favorite animal should be a horse!!" Favorite music? Favorite foods? Seriously, what parent is that much of a control freak that they insist on dictating a child's personal preferences to the most mundane things? I mean, sure, there are plenty of parents who disapprove of their child listening to rap music or playing violent video games. But that's so common it's become a cliche. What's your point, Sae? Why in the world did this thread go from believing in magic Narnia portals to potato chips and catfish?? Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. And that just happens to include, in most cases, belief in magic, which is not a bad thing! It's a personal choice, and is as honest as believing in a god. |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jul 16, 2011 22:46:46 GMT -5
Okay, in what earthly scenario are you finding parents who go, "Your favorite animal is a dog? Preposterous! My favorite animal is a horse! Your favorite animal should be a horse!!" Favorite music? Favorite foods? Seriously, what parent is that much of a control freak that they insist on dictating a child's personal preferences to the most mundane things? I mean, sure, there are plenty of parents who disapprove of their child listening to rap music or playing violent video games. But that's so common it's become a cliche. What's your point, Sae? Why in the world did this thread go from believing in magic Narnia portals to potato chips and catfish?? Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. And that just happens to include, in most cases, belief in magic, which is not a bad thing! It's a personal choice, and is as honest as believing in a god. I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a connection between that and telling a child to stop believing in it. People get older, they get wiser, and a lot of times they get to know the stark reality of the world. The childlike view is a great form of escapism. It's not entirely wrong to use it to delve away from the world a while. But it's not feasible to do it 24/7, because sooner or later, you have to get into the world to survive. You can believe what you want to believe, but understand a lot of people don't believe what you do and you do have to accomodate them, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 22:51:22 GMT -5
Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. And that just happens to include, in most cases, belief in magic, which is not a bad thing! It's a personal choice, and is as honest as believing in a god. I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a connection between that and telling a child to stop believing in it. People get older, they get wiser, and a lot of times they get to know the stark reality of the world. The childlike view is a great form of escapism. It's not entirely wrong to use it to delve away from the world a while. But it's not feasible to do it 24/7, because sooner or later, you have to get into the world to survive. You can believe what you want to believe, but understand a lot of people don't believe what you do and you do have to accomodate them, too. I understand that, it was more of a question of why people choose to shut it away. |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 16, 2011 22:52:07 GMT -5
I don't find the child like view great, I honestly wouldn't go back...I enjoyed my childhood a lot, but I'm enjoying the way I see the world much better now. When we live more we see more, we understand lots of things. i remember that most of little boys loved yelling at little girls "we're stronger' and little girls yelling back 'we're smarter', I honestly don't want to go back to that ignorant mentality. I guess some parents want young children to understand that because...because knowing is beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 22:57:58 GMT -5
Okay, in what earthly scenario are you finding parents who go, "Your favorite animal is a dog? Preposterous! My favorite animal is a horse! Your favorite animal should be a horse!!" Favorite music? Favorite foods? Seriously, what parent is that much of a control freak that they insist on dictating a child's personal preferences to the most mundane things? I mean, sure, there are plenty of parents who disapprove of their child listening to rap music or playing violent video games. But that's so common it's become a cliche. What's your point, Sae? Why in the world did this thread go from believing in magic Narnia portals to potato chips and catfish?? Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. And that just happens to include, in most cases, belief in magic, which is not a bad thing! It's a personal choice, and is as honest as believing in a god. This is going to sound a little blunt, but... The worldview held by a child isn't suited to the realities of adolescent and adult life. The mindset of a child is based in ignorance. People starve, crimes are committed, uncurable diseases exist. Though being oblivious to these problems may make one happy, they do nothing to solve the problems. To create a better world, problems have to be acknowledged and dealt with honestly, no matter how unhappy it makes us. |
|
|
|
Post by Nimras on Jul 16, 2011 23:28:49 GMT -5
From what I understand, the current psychological knowledge for humans is that ones personality is around 50% genetics (what you're born with) and 50% life experiences (with the exception of cases of extreme abuse). About every 7 years the personality of a person gained via experience is changed enough to count as a new personality, until the person is around 25 or so, at which point it slows down. So, even if there is no influence from a parent, a person has a new personality (or at least a half of a new personality) every 7 years. For your whole life. The idea that someone has a "set" personality from birth for the whole of their life, simply isn't possible. A good parent helps their child develop their personality. This means encouraging good traits, and discouraging bad traits. Discouraging doesn't mean punishment -- usually simply not providing a positive reinforcement to a bad trait, and giving positive reinforcement to a trait that is healthier. A person's personality is a constantly changing thing as they discover more about the world, are exposed to new ideas, and develop a more complex and nuanced view of the world and how it works. Young people have a very simple personality. The world is viewed in terms of black and white, and is usually totally self-centered (even the kids who seem to be really into helping others are often doing it for the good feelings it gives them or because of the attention it gets them -- compulsive helping disorder is a good example of this; where one is actually addicted to helping others, in order to fuel their addiction of feeling needed. It's inherently selfish, but appears selfless).
One hopes that as they grow older, they grow a more nuanced view of how people and the world actually work, and are able to use this knowledge to grow themselves and develop a personality that reflects the world that they live in and will help them thrive as an individual.
Even if one doesn't agree that personality can change, a parent's role (or a parental influence by a non-biological parent) are necessary; humans who don't have exposure to the world, thoughts, ideas, and influences of other humans are feral -- and feral humans are very different. Their lives are short. They are malnourished because they do not eat healthy food. Their bodies are scarred, crippled, and disabled, because in their innocence and naivety, cause themselves permanent physical damage. To a lesser extent, similar problems are found in children who have suffered extreme neglect. For an example, take the story of Danielle: "She was 8, but functioned as a 2-year-old. She had been left alone in a dank room, ignored for most of her life... She wore diapers, couldn't feed herself, couldn't talk. After more than a year in school, she still wouldn't make eye contact or play with other kids... They gave her a doll; she bit off its hands. They took her to the beach; she screamed and wouldn't put her feet in the sand... She couldn't peel the wrapper from a chocolate egg, so she ate the shiny paper too. She couldn't sit still to watch TV or look at a book. She couldn't hold a crayon." That is a what happens when I child is left to be itself, with no "programming" from a parent. I strongly suggest reading the whole article, as I only quoted bits and pieces of it, as it's a very good article. TL;DR: People aren't born with a fully realized personality -- but only half of one or so. The other half is created out of their life experiences, which grows and changes as they experience new things and ideas. To not have this other half of a personality and aid in developing it leaves the person stunted as an individual, and is truly lamentable. For the early formative years, it is a parent's job to help nurture and grow their child's personality, and to do any less is a grievous harm. In later years, it becomes up to the person to do this for themselves, but that doesn't mean that it's happening any less -- or that it's any less important. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jul 16, 2011 23:37:41 GMT -5
Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. Oh. Well, that's because, unless you plan on having your parents take care of you for the rest of your life, pretending the world works the way your 7-year-old self thought it worked will not allow you to survive in said world. 7-year-olds think the president can just give everyone a million dollars. 7-year-olds who want to be doctors never think about having a patient die on their table. 7-year-olds who want to be policemen never think about having to peel a dead body out of a chair, or pick through medical waste looking for a stray bullet. 7-year-olds never think about getting sick, getting injured, losing family members, or dying. 7-year-olds don't know what car insurance is, or a mortgage, or credit card debt. Parents feel like they're "taking away" a child's wonderment by trying to help bring them gently into reality, rather than just kicking them out the door when they're 18 and having it all crash down on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Jul 16, 2011 23:41:44 GMT -5
Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. Oh. Well, that's because, unless you plan on having your parents take care of you for the rest of your life, pretending the world works the way your 7-year-old self thought it worked will not allow you to survive in said world. 7-year-olds think the president can just give everyone a million dollars. 7-year-olds who want to be doctors never think about having a patient die on their table. 7-year-olds who want to be policemen never think about having to peel a dead body out of a chair, or pick through medical waste looking for a stray bullet. 7-year-olds never think about getting sick, getting injured, losing family members, or dying. 7-year-olds don't know what car insurance is, or a mortgage, or credit card debt. Parents feel like they're "taking away" a child's wonderment by trying to help bring them gently into reality, rather than just kicking them out the door when they're 18 and having it all crash down on them. I agree with Komori, it's just like I said before on another topic. If a lion cub gets food everytime it asks for it's mom, it will never learn how to hunt and probably won't survive on the wild. |
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Jul 17, 2011 1:00:55 GMT -5
Because to me, it never was about believing in magic and Narnia, it was about how our world view (which is GREAT as a child) is often pulled out of us. And that just happens to include, in most cases, belief in magic, which is not a bad thing! It's a personal choice, and is as honest as believing in a god. Believing something to be true about the physical world isn't the same thing as a simple preference. If I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, I'm not trying to make a statement about the physical world, it's just something I happen to like. But no adult should choose what they believe about the physical world the same way they choose which ice cream they like. You can't just say "This must be true because I like it." I suppose this can be forgiven in children, but I don't think it's something to encourage. |
|
Furgo 
Michael. 
