[Erwin_Br]

Indeed.

--Erwin

[Davies]

Originally Posted by Not A Speck Of Cereal

Children are the most precious thing on this planet (of any species). That human children need care as infants doesn't make them "animal". What a coarse viewpoint, one that has been proven to be unpopular -- so your post was very on topic! Bravo, I think...

Anyone who says that children, left entirely to themselves, are not savage beasts obviously hasn't lived around children who HAVE been left entirely to themselves. (And when did anyone say it had anything to do with infants needing care?)

Looking at the world with a sense of love, wonder, and curiosity is something that has to be taught and cultivated. And there's no reason why this attitude has to stop when you reach adulthood -- in fact, it broadens and deepens with experience.

I never said I advocated spanking for all ages, only for very young children who can't yet reason why they shouldn't do dangerous things. The pre-language, pre-reason condition demands contingent training rather than didactic teaching. If you recall, my example was sticking a fork in an electrical outlet. A quick smack on the bottom might stop a two-year-old from messing with electrical outlets any more. Sitting down for a chat about "it's not nice", or a lesson on the dangers of electricity, won't.

Originally Posted by Spiwak

I almost find it offensive that you use animals to represent some lower rung of a hierarchy that you're then lowering children to. I tend to believe that humans have little right to control or use animals or that animals must have a certain personality or beauty to be appreciated.

You're assuming a lot. I said children are like undomesticated animals (or, as above, "savage beasts"). In order to take part in human society, they have to be domesticated, as each of us was in our turn. Speaking rhetorically, this is changing them from "animal" to "human". I'm assuming that everyone here is capable of understanding rhetorical expression.

When did I, or anyone else, say that animals are less important than humans, or that humans should abuse animals?

[Davies]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

I agree with jat, actually. I think basically what he's trying to say is the old Plato story of the Ring of Gyges. The story hypothesized a ring that could make the wearer invisible, and basically the idea was that if anyone, whether just or unjust, were to have such a ring they would act unjustly and mischieviously and do whatever the fuck they wanted because they didn't face the fear of retribution. And thus men do not naturally behave justly, but out of necessity to escape punishment or shame. That's example is obviously a little extreme, but if you think about it, when we do 'the right thing,' are we really doing it selflessly? I doubt it, because at the very least we do it to feel good about ourselves (or, if you're religious, to please your God), if not for the respect or material rewards we could get out of it.

I think I first worked this out when I was about ten. If you have the option of considering your actions and making a conscious decision about what to do (even if you only think for a few seconds), then you're going to do what seems the best thing for you, given the circumstances as you see them. Even if you choose to make a sacrifice, it's because you think it's the best thing for you overall. As a basic example, I want to play a game but I choose to work, because working will earn me money and not working will mean I lose my job. This is more important than the transient enjoyment of playing a game. Or I spend my money to buy you a gift, because making you happy is more valuable to me (for whatever reason) than the money.

If you're operating entirely without thinking, like the examples we've had of rushing into a burning building to save a stranger, then two different forces come into play:

First, you've got a lifetime of conditioning behind you. Even without conscious decision-making, you're programmed so that some actions are more likely than others. In our society, we're all heavily conditioned to attempt to help others whenever possible. (For more on this, read up on behaviour analysis and conditioning.)

Second, you've got millennia of evolution behind you. As a social species, we have innate predispositions toward altruism. This comes from two evolutionary pressures. In a small, relatively closed group (which is the natural sort of group for humans), everyone you meet is likely to be related to you in some way, so helping them is indirectly helping your own genes. Also, we have evolved to expect that helpers will in turn be helped when they need it. (For more on this, read up on sociobiology and altruism.)

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Davies

Anyone who says that children, left entirely to themselves, are not savage beasts obviously hasn't lived around children who HAVE been left entirely to themselves.

I can understand that. However, I don't believe that adults are any less savage... it's simply that adults have less leeway to "get away" with such behavior. (Case in point: if any adults tried doing what the playground bullies did to me every day when I was a kid, they'd be in jail so fast it's not funny.) But if given free reign to do what they want, adults can just as bad. Ranging from the ridiculousness of parents fighting each other for the last must-have toy at Christmas, to people fighting in actual war, I'm afraid that savage behavior is endemic to all ages.

Originally Posted by Davies

Looking at the world with a sense of love, wonder, and curiosity is something that has to be taught and cultivated. And there's no reason why this attitude has to stop when you reach adulthood -- in fact, it broadens and deepens with experience.

This I disagree with. Young children start out having a strong sense of unbiased curiousity, which is why I find them so intriguing. But over time we tend to squash that out of them to civilize them.

No, honey, you can't touch that. No honey, you can't ask that. No, honey, you're not allowed to go in there. Because I said so. Because that's just the way it is. Having been an incessantly curious child, I'm all too familiar with being persuaded to "keep my nose where it belongs".

And no, there's no reason to have that sense of wonder and curiousity stop... but all to often it does, because we've been taught to stop asking, stop caring, and stop playing with "childish things". I only know a few adults who have the same wonderment as a child does, and they're all "geeky" types.

Originally Posted by Davies

I never said I advocated spanking for all ages, only for very young children who can't yet reason why they shouldn't do dangerous things. The pre-language, pre-reason condition demands contingent training rather than didactic teaching.

Well, except the problem is that a child too young to reason is also too young to connect the smack with what they're doing wrong.

Originally Posted by Davies

I said children are like undomesticated animals (or, as above, "savage beasts"). In order to take part in human society, they have to be domesticated, as each of us was in our turn. Speaking rhetorically, this is changing them from "animal" to "human".

I should also note that, I find a *lot* of people seem to forget what it was like being young. I still remember being a kid, and I look at children now with as little bias as I can, and I find in both instances that children are a lot smarter and more aware than adults give them credit for.

As smart and as aware as adults? No, of course not. But, I've met very few parents who treat their children with the actual awareness the child currently possesses. I have, however, met a lot of parents who are surprised at how aware their child is. (Oops, I've been spelling stuff out all this time thinking Junior didn't understand, when actually he has for quite some time now.)

I've spent many years grinding my teeth over how some of my friends were treated ridiculously because their parents didn't realize what their child was actually capable of being aware of. (And in fact, part of the reason I moved out myself was because I got tired of my mom lecturing me when she knew jack all about what was actually going on.)

Peace & Luv, Liz

[SSH]

Originally Posted by Davies

Anyone who says that children, left entirely to themselves, are not savage beasts obviously hasn't lived around children who HAVE been left entirely to themselves.

Give me back that conch shell, Piggy.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by SSH

Give me back that conch shell, Piggy.

That (Lord of the Flies by William Golding) is one of the truly most frightening books I've ever read. Most horror you can just shrug off because it involves something beyond the world we see day to day (a monster lurking in the dark which we can convince ourselves doesn't really exist) That book is all too plausible and didn't have that comforting cushions.

Children need to understand boundaries. It's not just a case of stifling curiosity. A child not prevented from getting too curious about sticking their fingers in a socket is a child that will learn nothing more. As adults we have boundaries (laws) and if we don't instil a sense of respect for others and that there are certain boundaries (laws) in children then we are creating adults that will have real trouble in later life.

[Jelena]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

Well, except the problem is that a child too young to reason is also too young to connect the smack with what they're doing wrong.

I totally agree. A smacked child will connect the pain with something, but not necessarily what the spanking parent intended. It may very well associate the spanking with the parent or the room where the spanking takes place. It's indeed a very risky business to use spanking to someone that young when it works just as well to firmly removing the child and using your body language and face expression to tell the child: no, do not touch that thingie on the wall! (electrical outlet)

I've spent many years grinding my teeth over how some of my friends were treated ridiculously because their parents didn't realize what their child was actually capable of being aware of. (And in fact, part of the reason I moved out myself was because I got tired of my mom lecturing me when she knew jack all about what was actually going on.)

This is where I'm at now in my relationship with my teenage children especially my daughter who I too often treat as though she's still my little girl. It's so darned hard to stop parenting them: giving advice, caring too much, being too nosy and wanting to know everything.

EDIT: Oh, and now I'm out of this discussion. Promise!

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Davies

Anyone who says that children, left entirely to themselves, are not savage beasts obviously hasn't lived around children who HAVE been left entirely to themselves.

Whoa, where did the "left entirely to themselves" qualifier come from? That changes your broad view to the specific, and that's a disingenuous means of putting all human infants in the animal genre.

(And when did anyone say it had anything to do with infants needing care?)

And I quote of you:

Children are, essentially, undomesticated animals. If they are to become human, they need consistent training and discipline as they develop

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

In your examples, the average person knows that when they see somebody in imminent danger, they will feel terrible if they watch that person die. They act in order to avoid a negative consequence. They also get the secondary benefit of being a hero and the good feelings that go along with that.

The negative-state relief model, followed by the empathy-altruism hypothesis. I'm glad I took that social psychology course all those years ago.

[SSH]

The ultimate heroism (or selfless act, if you will) is not just giving up your own life so that others live, but knowing that in doing so that many or all of those you are saving don't know about it or will even actively deny it. Surely that is a truly selfless act?

One heck of a guy, that Jesus

[Spiwak]

Who doesn't know about Jesus's death or denies that it happened? I'm sure he was well aware of the martyr implications his death would hold, at the very least amongst his followers.

Not that I'm accusing his actions or character, but I don't think that example disproves the argument in any way. Who knows what he might have been thinking.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

Who doesn't know about Jesus's death or denies that it happened?

Muslims deny that it happened. I happen to think the evidence for Jesus's life is extremely thin. You'd first have to accept that Jesus was God, for his death to have helped anyone. Then you might have to rap your head around the sense of blood sacrifices in the first place. Yet, this is no ordinary blood sacrifice, he's sacrificing himself to himself, for him to forgive us, our sins, that he created, as well as us.

[Jatsie]

According to the Koran the crucifixion was a divine illusion. Instead of dying on the cross, Jesus was rescued by angels and raised to heaven.

ITV are making a documentary on the Islamic view of Jesus, which will probably have interesting consequences...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2151358,00.html

[jacog]

Never quite understood the whole Jesus sacrifice thing. Not much of a sacrifice really if he was just going to end up in heaven anyway. Now, if he were to burn in hell for all eternity for the sins of the world... that would have been a suitable, more relevant sacrifice. I think the people for whom this religion was intended were generally more impressed with the idea of death. It has become somewhat more trivial in this age. Desensitisation through the media et al.

[SSH]

Yay, not only has this thread gone OT, but its even gone OT from its OT! MY evil plan has worked!

[Jatsie]

Ah ha, I shall thwart you with another opinion.

I think that The Hobbit was a better book than The Lord of The Rings, and that the latter is a generally overrated book.

[jacog]

Well of course. The Hobbit had more dwarves than elves... and everyone knows that elves are just annoying Calvin Klein models with pointy ears. Dwarves are much better.

[Spiwak]

OK, well here are some of my unpopular opinions:

-Gone With the Wind is ridiculously overrated.
-I like Star Wars: Ep. I-III.
-I think there might be too much emphasis on being P.C. nowadays that it's quickly becoming impossible to say anything about any particular community.
-Vanilla beats chocolate.
-I'd rather see sexual material in the media given leniency than violence.
-Most supermodels are not attractive in the slightest.

Hmm, maybe they're not so unpopular.

[Squinky]

I find Tolkien rather dry and uninspiring.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

OK, well here are some of my unpopular opinions:

-Gone With the Wind is ridiculously overrated.

Yes!

-I like Star Wars: Ep. I-III.

Yes!

-I think there might be too much emphasis on being P.C. nowadays that it's quickly becoming impossible to say anything about any particular community.

Here, I differ. Lately, I'm finding the opposite. When I run into someone saying something absolutely offensive (no doubt) and I counter, I'm often told that I'm being overly PC.

"Um, no, that was decidedly racist, or mysogonist, or offensive-to-an-entire-class-of-people and I'm not going to sit idly by and let you get away with it."

Bigotry exists, but they think they can get away with it now somehow.

-Vanilla beats chocolate.

Yes!

-I'd rather see sexual material in the media given leniency than violence.

Yes!

-Most supermodels are not attractive in the slightest.

Well... they usually beat the western fixation on el mondo grosso huge and fake tits.