Children come into this world innocent. They don't know what to admire or even what inspiration is. If our society valued education and encouraged reading books and learning and building the mind, then that's what children would do.
More than anything, children want to be loved, accepted, and encouraged. They'll do anything you ask if you love them for doing it. They don't know anything else.
Hey no offense but I'm guessing that you haven't spent very much time interacting with children that aren't your own. In my experience children lie and dissemble and deceive before they learn to talk. Think about all of the crying and malingering they do to manipulate adults into giving them food or anything else that they happen to want. Think about the vicious competitiveness of every sibling rivalry. They do want to be loved, accepted, and encouraged as you say, but they are perfectly capable of figuring out their own ways of getting these things - and are often willing to bend the rules if they are not disciplined.
I can't disagree with you more. I have spent time around other parents' children. Many of the kids are better behaved than their parents. Many of them are dismayed that the world treats them poorly because of their parents' bad behavior.
Lying is a natural. It is a gift that humans and few other species share. Every child that matures into a capable adult learns how to lie. They experiment with lying. They test their ability to lie. Children who don't learn to lie are emotionally and intellectually stunted.
It is effective parenting that instills in the child the knowledge that lying is only so effective. It gets you some distance, but when the lie is discovered you crash. People distrust you. They won't help you when you need it. Honesty has value as well.
If parents give in to the lies, because they lack the courage to punish them, the child pays the price later in life. If parents don't teach their children that lies and dishonesty have negative consequences, and if lies are continually rewarded, then that's what the child is going to learn best.
Parents who reward lies are doing their children a great disservice as well as the world who has to tolerate them as they grow up.
"Many of the kids are better behaved than their parents."
Huh? Do you have any hard data to back up this bizarre proposition? Certainly everything I've ever experienced speaks rather forcefully against it. The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation, not to be encouraged or preserved.
Methinks you are confusing the reality of children with what you wish or imagine children are. There is a reason "acting like a child" is not a compliment.
The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation
I think the problems you mention are largely caused by today's school environments, not cured by them.
there was a video on the news the other day that some kids with cell phones had recorded of this one kid beating the crap out of another kid and it was the kid getting beat up who was punished by the school.
Okay, that's a fair point. There are some very stupid policies concerning fights - I've seen my younger brother be penalized for defending himself as well. But it is silly to say that schools cause the fights in the first place, and/or that kids, left to their own devices, would be civil to one another.
You're not contradicting me, because I'm not saying schools are entirely responsible for the cruelty of children. However, the problems are exacerbated by the environment.
Yes, children lie and cheat. But children that are not loved/given affection probably won't even learn to talk, and become emotionally damaged. There has been an interesting study on the effect on absence of affection on monkeys. It didn't turn out pretty.
Kids who are loved are cruel, they lie and they cheat. Children that are not loved are simply even worse.
I really wish people would not use words like "innocent" in this context. Exactly what do you mean by your statement? Do you mean they are not guilty of a crime? What crime, the crime of being adult? Or free from moral wrong? A few minutes watching a young boy pulling wings off flies will disabuse you of this misconception.
I just can't stand this nonsense about children being these pure little angels who can do no wrong. A blank slate, yes, perhaps. Words like "innocent" are just plain inapplicable and say more about the speaker than they do the kids.
They are free of moral wrong, like a lion who tears a zebra apart. Or like a shark who attacks a surfer.
Actions that are morally wrong to us are not morally wrong for those who lack morals. And if you can do no wrong you certainly can't be guilty. Therefore, innocent seems an apt label.
"I don't really care much for semantic arguments."
Semantics, ie. meaning, is the whole point of language. I do not think that it is useless nit-picking to point out that your use of words is wrong. The word "innocent" has a positive bias; you could not criticise someone as being innocent. But lacking "societal norms, customs, virtues or values" (from the article you linked to) could not possibly be described as a positive attribute.
Language means what it means. If you mean something different, say that instead. You can't wave away criticism by just saying "well who cares about word meanings anyway".
No doubt you don't like them, because those definitions are instructive.
The first one, "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" is exactly what I am talking about. Think about the axioms implicit in that definition:
1. evil exists
2. there is no inherent evil, evil must be learned
3. we can therefore prevent "evil" by restricting knowledge
4. guilt and sin exist
And so on. These are exactly the kind of suppositions that people use when arguing against, say, sex education in schools. To protect "innocence".
You might think all of this is just irrelevant bickering but I think it's extremely important. "Innocent" is a highly loaded term, straining under the weight of its inherent assumptions - it's not a word, it's a whole potted worldview. I think it's useful to point that out. I've done that now, and the prosecution rests.
You know pj, deleting all your comments and thus ruining an interesting discussion doesn't make you right; it makes you a sore loser. The fact you have been reduced to such a childish "last word", rather than just admitting my point, speaks volumes.
Comments
Children come into this world innocent. They don't know what to admire or even what inspiration is. If our society valued education and encouraged reading books and learning and building the mind, then that's what children would do.
More than anything, children want to be loved, accepted, and encouraged. They'll do anything you ask if you love them for doing it. They don't know anything else.
Hey no offense but I'm guessing that you haven't spent very much time interacting with children that aren't your own. In my experience children lie and dissemble and deceive before they learn to talk. Think about all of the crying and malingering they do to manipulate adults into giving them food or anything else that they happen to want. Think about the vicious competitiveness of every sibling rivalry. They do want to be loved, accepted, and encouraged as you say, but they are perfectly capable of figuring out their own ways of getting these things - and are often willing to bend the rules if they are not disciplined.
I can't disagree with you more. I have spent time around other parents' children. Many of the kids are better behaved than their parents. Many of them are dismayed that the world treats them poorly because of their parents' bad behavior.
Lying is a natural. It is a gift that humans and few other species share. Every child that matures into a capable adult learns how to lie. They experiment with lying. They test their ability to lie. Children who don't learn to lie are emotionally and intellectually stunted.
It is effective parenting that instills in the child the knowledge that lying is only so effective. It gets you some distance, but when the lie is discovered you crash. People distrust you. They won't help you when you need it. Honesty has value as well.
If parents give in to the lies, because they lack the courage to punish them, the child pays the price later in life. If parents don't teach their children that lies and dishonesty have negative consequences, and if lies are continually rewarded, then that's what the child is going to learn best.
Parents who reward lies are doing their children a great disservice as well as the world who has to tolerate them as they grow up.
"Many of the kids are better behaved than their parents."
Huh? Do you have any hard data to back up this bizarre proposition? Certainly everything I've ever experienced speaks rather forcefully against it. The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation, not to be encouraged or preserved.
Methinks you are confusing the reality of children with what you wish or imagine children are. There is a reason "acting like a child" is not a compliment.
I think you're talking about children of different age groups.
The bullying in schools, the ostracism of anyone different, the teasing. This is not learned behaviour, it is the default state, to be overcome by education and socialisation
I think the problems you mention are largely caused by today's school environments, not cured by them.
This strikes me as a lofty-sounding statement that may not actually mean very much. I'd love to hear you elaborate and contradict me.
I think the US public school system is deeply flawed, but one of the few things I don't blame it for is the cruelty of children. Kids are just cruel.
there was a video on the news the other day that some kids with cell phones had recorded of this one kid beating the crap out of another kid and it was the kid getting beat up who was punished by the school.
Okay, that's a fair point. There are some very stupid policies concerning fights - I've seen my younger brother be penalized for defending himself as well. But it is silly to say that schools cause the fights in the first place, and/or that kids, left to their own devices, would be civil to one another.
One anecdote does not a general rule make.
You're not contradicting me, because I'm not saying schools are entirely responsible for the cruelty of children. However, the problems are exacerbated by the environment.
Okay, well we agree on that point. :)
Yes, children lie and cheat. But children that are not loved/given affection probably won't even learn to talk, and become emotionally damaged. There has been an interesting study on the effect on absence of affection on monkeys. It didn't turn out pretty.
Kids who are loved are cruel, they lie and they cheat. Children that are not loved are simply even worse.
"Children come into this world innocent."
I really wish people would not use words like "innocent" in this context. Exactly what do you mean by your statement? Do you mean they are not guilty of a crime? What crime, the crime of being adult? Or free from moral wrong? A few minutes watching a young boy pulling wings off flies will disabuse you of this misconception.
I just can't stand this nonsense about children being these pure little angels who can do no wrong. A blank slate, yes, perhaps. Words like "innocent" are just plain inapplicable and say more about the speaker than they do the kids.
They are free of moral wrong, like a lion who tears a zebra apart. Or like a shark who attacks a surfer.
Actions that are morally wrong to us are not morally wrong for those who lack morals. And if you can do no wrong you certainly can't be guilty. Therefore, innocent seems an apt label.
[deleted]
"I don't really care much for semantic arguments."
Semantics, ie. meaning, is the whole point of language. I do not think that it is useless nit-picking to point out that your use of words is wrong. The word "innocent" has a positive bias; you could not criticise someone as being innocent. But lacking "societal norms, customs, virtues or values" (from the article you linked to) could not possibly be described as a positive attribute.
Language means what it means. If you mean something different, say that instead. You can't wave away criticism by just saying "well who cares about word meanings anyway".
[deleted]
No doubt you don't like them, because those definitions are instructive.
The first one, "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" is exactly what I am talking about. Think about the axioms implicit in that definition:
And so on. These are exactly the kind of suppositions that people use when arguing against, say, sex education in schools. To protect "innocence".You might think all of this is just irrelevant bickering but I think it's extremely important. "Innocent" is a highly loaded term, straining under the weight of its inherent assumptions - it's not a word, it's a whole potted worldview. I think it's useful to point that out. I've done that now, and the prosecution rests.
And since we're linking to wikipedia, here's one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis
You know pj, deleting all your comments and thus ruining an interesting discussion doesn't make you right; it makes you a sore loser. The fact you have been reduced to such a childish "last word", rather than just admitting my point, speaks volumes.