Censorship of Violent Content

[Darkforbid]

Quite true --- almost everything to do with sex is censored all over the world (except on explicit web porn sites), and yet violence is not only depicted, but depicted gleefully and in glorious detail. Yet, I'm pretty certain people are having a lot more sex than they are bothering to commit violence.

Did you just ask for sex on TV?

 

[Brickjectivity]

My reasoning is twofold:

1) There is no logical entailment being having a guardian and granting that guardian complete control over what a child learns. You need an extra premise which you have not provided.

2) It is beneficial for a child to have access to a variety of lessons and perspectives since that leads to a more knowledgeable ( and well rounded ) individual.



I have no qualms with parents being involved in that decision. What we are talking about is having something aking to supreme power over what the child learns. Those two are not one and the same.

Plus, I hate to break it to you but parents often don't know their children as much as they presume to know. There are aspects of our being that can only be seen, and interacted with, when coming from a different angle.



I am not talking about having multiple guardians. I am talking about not giving that much power to guardians in the first place.

A child faces several obstacles. They can't protect themselves physically, nor mentally. They can't teach themselves. They can't feed themselves. They can't even make all of their own decisions. This is not the fault of guardians but a property of childhood. They must have guardians, and nobody can guarantee that those guardians are either suitable or the best or that more would be better than few. No guardian is prepared for all occurrences. Its fair to assume that every guardian is also deficient, because guardians are themselves recently spawned and still learning. Mortality guarantees a steady supply of flawed guardians, yet they must make decisions for children, decide what children learn first, what they should or shouldn't know. How are you going to change this?

 

[Koldo]

A child faces several obstacles. They can't protect themselves physically, nor mentally. They can't teach themselves. They can't feed themselves. They can't even make all of their own decisions. This is not the fault of guardians but a property of childhood. They must have guardians, and nobody can guarantee that those guardians are either suitable or the best or that more would be better than few. No guardian is prepared for all occurrences. Its fair to assume that every guardian is also deficient, because guardians are themselves recently spawned and still learning. Mortality guarantees a steady supply of flawed guardians, yet they must make decisions for children, decide what children learn first, what they should or shouldn't know. How are you going to change this?

It doesn't follow that since children must have guardians to provide for them that those guardians must also decide what a child should not learn.

A few decades ago you might as well have asked me how I was supposed to change the "fact" that parents were entitled to beating their children as much and as hard as they found it fit to educate them. It is a matter of perception that gladly changed as time went by.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It doesn't follow that since children must have guardians to provide for them that those guardians must also decide what a child should not learn.

A few decades ago you might as well have asked me how I was supposed to change the "fact" that parents were entitled to beating their children as much and as hard as they found it fit to educate them. It is a matter of perception that gladly changed as time went by.

Lets not equate beating and parenting, but yes guardians do have to decide what a child does not learn. It is that natural complement of deciding what children are taught, where they go. Similarly a guardian decides what a child will wear, because the child cannot cloth itself.

 

[Koldo]

Lets not equate beating and parenting, but yes guardians do have to decide what a child does not learn. It is that natural complement of deciding what children are taught, where they go. Similarly a guardian decides what a child will wear, because the child cannot cloth itself.

Beating used to be a form of parenting as you probably know.

There is nothing natural about deciding what children can not learn. It is a convention. The fact we do something in a given way is no excuse, nor justification, to continue doing it that way. We need more, much more than that. And you have not provided any.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is nothing natural about deciding what children can not learn. It is a convention. The fact we do something in a given way is no excuse, nor justification, to continue doing it that way. We need more, much more than that. And you have not provided any.

You clearly are unhappy with human nature as are we all to some degree. Taking parents out of the equation can't fix that. Educating parents is going to help a lot of kids, but parenting is no panacea. Parents have to be in control of that process. Nobody can be them for them in their place.

 

[Koldo]

You clearly are unhappy with human nature as are we all to some degree. Taking parents out of the equation can't fix that. Educating parents is going to help a lot of kids, but parenting is no panacea. Parents have to be in control of that process. Nobody can be them for them in their place.

I am not taking parents out of the equation. I want them to be where they belong: as guardians that work towards flourishing their children, not as dictators that rule over every single interaction that a child has. I haven't seen you making an argument for why it shouldn't be this way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Did you just ask for sex on TV?

No, I'm criticizing idiotic double standards.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am not taking parents out of the equation. I want them to be where they belong: as guardians that work towards flourishing their children, not as dictators that rule over every single interaction that a child has. I haven't seen you making an argument for why it shouldn't be this way.

No really my goal, but you haven't shown how its possible to change the way things are and have been for hundreds of thousands of years -- hardly a convention when its been done for so long. You've not provided any means for parents to do differently, have put forward no ideas beyond magic. Government control of children has been tried and failed, so you can't use that. Its always up to parents how children are reared. All you can do is say you don't like it and blame me for pointing out that's how it is.

 

[Stevicus]

No really my goal, but you haven't shown how its possible to change the way things are and have been for hundreds of thousands of years -- hardly a convention when its been done for so long. You've not provided any means for parents to do differently, have put forward no ideas beyond magic. Government control of children has been tried and failed, so you can't use that. Its always up to parents how children are reared. All you can do is say you don't like it and blame me for pointing out that's how it is.

I'm not sure about government control of children, although one common complaint I've heard from many parents is related to the idea that there is so much in the society that influences their children, yet is outside of their own control or ability to adequate guide them. That seems to be the underlying motive in parents who want to homeschool their children, if they disapprove of what they're taught in the public schools.

Some parents have even called for the government to censor content they don't like on TV, radio, movies, "Satanic" rock music - all in the name of protecting their children from whatever "boogieman" is out there. But at least they now have warning labels and parental controls so parents can still protect their children without infringing on the rights of others.

As for it always being up to the parents how the child is reared, that's generally true, although the parents are also products of their own society and cultural upbringing. So, even if it's not direct government control, they're still ostensibly influenced by the greater society and culture, but that's where it gets complicated, due to the complexities of society and the diversity of cultures and sub-cultures within the country.

My sense is that through most of human history, it might have been a lot simpler, given that most humans lived in semi-isolated or agrarian settings. But then again, being raised in that kind of situation, where everyone in a village is part of the same clan or tribe, they're all kind of interrelated. But because of this, they all had a stake in protecting each other's children; it was a family bond.

But nowadays, people live in their own private boxes all across an urbanized landscape, not really knowing who their neighbors or what kind of predatory individuals are out there. Some people have to put bars on their windows and double locks on their doors. Some even feel the need to stockpile weapons and prepare for the apocalypse. Some don't even want their kids to be vaccinated, because they believe it's their right as parents to raise their children however they want.

I'm not advocating government control of children, but there does appear to be certain complexities in today's society which weren't really present in earlier eras of human history. Some things might have to be looked at. For me, I would feel tremendously sorry for a kid whose parents are/were members of the Westboro Baptist Church. That seems incredibly wrong to me, yet I'm supposed to respect that they're the parents and know what's best for their children. There's always something about that line of thinking that's always bothered me, even if there's a certain logic to it on its face.

 

[Koldo]

No really my goal, but you haven't shown how its possible to change the way things are and have been for hundreds of thousands of years -- hardly a convention when its been done for so long. You've not provided any means for parents to do differently, have put forward no ideas beyond magic. Government control of children has been tried and failed, so you can't use that. Its always up to parents how children are reared. All you can do is say you don't like it and blame me for pointing out that's how it is.

1) This is not the way things have been for hundred of years. Nowadays, parents tend to micromanage their childrens' lives a LOT more than they used to. Parents would generally let their children do as they pleased with their free time, including going out to the street and learning whatever they felt like learning. As long as they were not causing trouble or tagging along with criminals it was all fine.

2) You could literally be saying the same thing about changing the culture on regards to parents beating children. About 50 years it would have been unthinkable to interfer on that. And yet here we are. What was formerly widely accepted is now both legally and socially unnaceptable.

3) I don't need to provide any path towards changing the culture/law to criticize the way we do things. As a matter of fact though, the path is making people realize their children are NOT their property. If anything, we are already on that path.

4) I am not blaming you for pointing how it is. I am blaming you for condoning it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is not the way things have been for hundred of years. Nowadays, parents tend to micromanage their childrens' lives a LOT more than they used to. Parents would generally let their children do as they pleased with their free time, including going out to the street and learning whatever they felt like learning. As long as they were not causing trouble or tagging along with criminals it was all fine.

Things have changed a lot as a result of technological revolutions. 'Normal' is changing. I notice that on the internet a lot of children will assume that a tiny bit of politeness means I am trustworthy and caring. Often their parents are unaware that they are chatting on game servers, and I don't like that. Its dangerous and exposes me to liability. The parents are being neglectful in this case. In addition many children are emotionally codependent, have emotional problems they can't deal with. Parents are advised to use other services which do not expose their children to the direct dialogue of strangers. For example they can get their kids to play games like club penguin which has a censorship option.

You could literally be saying the same thing about changing the culture on regards to parents beating children. About 50 years it would have been unthinkable to interfer on that. And yet here we are. What was formerly widely accepted is now both legally and socially unnaceptable.

This does not relate at all to my point. The fact that parents change their practices doesn't at all make them unnecessary or change the fact that we cannot do without them nor imply that we can replace them with government standards nor that they can teach children without impressing ignorance upon the same children.

Ignorance is important, particularly for children. We hide truth within fiction, so that they can grow up feeling that its normal to be good, to be nice, to care about strangers. The ideas of normal and good and the common sense are derived in generations through this process. At the same time we have to protect children from those same strangers, protect them from people who are not nice, protect them from people who have not learned to be good. You see we teach them lies that people are nice and protect them from those people we are lying to them about. They often can't deal with truth themselves, because their personalities are still forming or because they are mentally deficient sometimes. They're being molded into a shape that is fit for civil life -- through ignorance and knowledge combined. They're being made to feel that being nice is normal. Historically it isn't normal. Its in fact a lie. The story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin is a fiction which contains a terrible truth. We teach the fiction, not the truth and let the children figure it out when they grow up.

Why don't we eat our enemies and why should it be illegal? Are their bodies not nutritious? Surely they have nutrition and can be cooked? Isn't it disrespectful to waste so much meat? The Myans ate their enemies, and it was normal for them. It felt normal for them. It kept their children fat. Surely we can do that. Yes of course we can do that. We can even make it legal to farm humans for food if we like. Its entirely doable and natural, but we don't teach our children that. Instead we teach them the ignorance that this is unnatural (which it is quite natural), that it is unthinkable (when it is in fact historically practiced), that it is beastly (upholding the fiction that we are not beasts). We do this, so they will have a nice society to live in some day, so they won't become food on someone's plate and so that humanity does not behave as the horror that is so easily is.

I don't need to provide any path towards changing the culture/law to criticize the way we do things. As a matter of fact though, the path is making people realize their children are NOT their property. If anything, we are already on that path.

I don't disagree even though this is off topic. You admit here something which is that parents sometimes tend to think of children as their property, however I suggest that in modern culture we hide this and cause younger people to consider it abnormal. This is a type of ignorance. In fact parents do own their children though we make it an unthinkable thought in modern society. We do this for the good of society not because it is an absolute truth. It is the easiest thing in the world for parents to make children into slaves, and they have often done so throughout history. That we consider it to be an evil is the result of an ignorance our own parents have impressed upon us.

 

[Koldo]

Things have changed a lot as a result of technological revolutions. 'Normal' is changing. I notice that on the internet a lot of children will assume that a tiny bit of politeness means I am trustworthy and caring. Often their parents are unaware that they are chatting on game servers, and I don't like that. Its dangerous and exposes me to liability. The parents are being neglectful in this case. In addition many children are emotionally codependent, have emotional problems they can't deal with. Parents are advised to use other services which do not expose their children to the direct dialogue of strangers. For example they can get their kids to play games like club penguin which has a censorship option.

I hate to break it to you once again but adults often have emotional problems too, and many of them are related to their relationship with their parents. Do you suggest sheltering children ? Does 'Bubble Boy' ring any bells ?

This does not relate at all to my point. The fact that parents change their practices doesn't at all make them unnecessary or change the fact that we cannot do without them nor imply that we can replace them with government standards nor that they can teach children without impressing ignorance upon the same children.

Doesn't make what unnecessary ? Their practices ? Are you suggesting that beating children is not unnecessary ?

Ignorance is important, particularly for children. We hide truth within fiction, so that they can grow up feeling that its normal to be good, to be nice, to care about strangers. The ideas of normal and good and the common sense are derived in generations through this process. At the same time we have to protect children from those same strangers, protect them from people who are not nice, protect them from people who have not learned to be good. You see we teach them lies that people are nice and protect them from those people we are lying to them about. They often can't deal with truth themselves, because their personalities are still forming or because they are mentally deficient sometimes. They're being molded into a shape that is fit for civil life -- through ignorance and knowledge combined. They're being made to feel that being nice is normal. Historically it isn't normal. Its in fact a lie. The story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin is a fiction which contains a terrible truth. We teach the fiction, not the truth and let the children figure it out when they grow up.

Why don't we eat our enemies and why should it be illegal? Are their bodies not nutritious? Surely they have nutrition and can be cooked? Isn't it disrespectful to waste so much meat? The Myans ate their enemies, and it was normal for them. It felt normal for them. It kept their children fat. Surely we can do that. Yes of course we can do that. We can even make it legal to farm humans for food if we like. Its entirely doable and natural, but we don't teach our children that. Instead we teach them the ignorance that this is unnatural (which it is quite natural), that it is unthinkable (when it is in fact historically practiced), that it is beastly (upholding the fiction that we are not beasts). We do this, so they will have a nice society to live in some day, so they won't become food on someone's plate and so that humanity does not behave as the horror that is so easily is.

Only irresponsible parents would teach their children that everyone is going to be nice to them. That is not only false but also dangerous. Why do you assume that children wouldn't be able to handle that ?

It IS normal to be nice, even historically. Do you really think our predecessors were all at each other's throat every single day ? What is not normal is for everyone to be nice to everyone every single day, but you only need to watch tv news to know better.

The last part of this quote was about why we don't teach that a socially unnaceptable practice is socially acceptable. Well... The adjectives we use to describe it are inconsequential, what matters is that the child gets to learn what is socially acceptable behavior and what is not.

I don't disagree even though this is off topic. You admit here something which is that parents sometimes tend to think of children as their property, however I suggest that in modern culture we hide this and cause younger people to consider it abnormal. This is a type of ignorance. In fact parents do own their children though we make it an unthinkable thought in modern society. We do this for the good of society not because it is an absolute truth. It is the easiest thing in the world for parents to make children into slaves, and they have often done so throughout history. That we consider it to be an evil is the result of an ignorance our own parents have impressed upon us.

They do NOT own them. Not legally nor socially. If anyone nowadays were to turn their children into a slave they would be both legally and socially punished. The worst part though is that by the way you have phrased this post you seem to be completely fine with parents owning children. I would like you to clarify whether my impression is accurate.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I hate to break it to you once again but adults often have emotional problems too, and many of them are related to their relationship with their parents. Do you suggest sheltering children ? Does 'Bubble Boy' ring any bells ?

Adults can indeed have emotional problems. We're talking about children on the internet making themselves available to predators.

Doesn't make what unnecessary ? Their practices ? Are you suggesting that beating children is not unnecessary ?

Beating children is unnecessary. How many times are you going to accuse all parents of beating their children? Are you unwilling to discuss anything besides parents who beat children, because nothing in this thread is about parents beating children except your consistent insistence that parenting = beating children. Parents and guardians are necessary for children, and you seem to be avoiding this truth by changing the subject.

Only irresponsible parents would teach their children that everyone is going to be nice to them. That is not only false but also dangerous. Why do you assume that children wouldn't be able to handle that ?
It IS normal to be nice, even historically. Do you really think our predecessors were all at each other's throat every single day ? What is not normal is for everyone to be nice to everyone every single day, but you only need to watch tv news to know better.

The last part of this quote was about why we don't teach that a socially unnaceptable practice is socially acceptable. Well... The adjectives we use to describe it are inconsequential, what matters is that the child gets to learn what is socially acceptable behavior and what is not.

So...on the one hand you say we mustn't censor any information that children receive, but on the other you say they must be taught what is socially acceptable. You admit they don't know what is socially acceptable. I think you are making progress. Obviously someone has to teach them, and I am saying that person should be someone who knows them not some stranger in an office.

They do NOT own them. Not legally nor socially. If anyone nowadays were to turn their children into a slave they would be both legally and socially punished. The worst part though is that by the way you have phrased this post you seem to be completely fine with parents owning children. I would like you to clarify whether my impression is accurate.

In modern times particularly in the West people reject the idea that the parents own children, but you are wrong to think that this is a natural belief. Parents have always tended to view children as part of themselves and to also consider them property. There is also a tragic tendency worldwide for families to sell their children into slavery.

You've attempted to accuse me of supporting parents beating children, and you've attempted to accuse me of supporting parents owning children. These are both distractions, showing you aren't able to support your point of view.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There are countries in which almost everything written or shown on TV is censored by government. On the other hand, there are countries that allows almost everything to be shown or posted uncensored..

It's clear to us why excessive censorship is bad. But there are so many people who don't see a problem in the complete lack of censorship. Thus, we see in abundance what the wise Louis in Family Guy calls "violence in movies and sex on TV". People killing each other with cold blood, dismembering body parts, torture, and rape are only normal scenes on movies and TV series nowadays.

However, especially after the rising number of teenage mass shootings, people have started to question the wisdom behind allowing so much violence.

Do you think the filters of censorship should be thicker, allowing for less violent content? Or do you thing it's actually better to have such freedom of movie and TV production?

I tend to think there should be a return to "family hour" where violence and sexual content should be reserved for late evening and night. Presumably when children are, or ought to be in bed.

 

[Koldo]

Adults can indeed have emotional problems. We're talking about children on the internet making themselves available to predators.

Adults are also targets for other kinds of predators. Not to mention that sexual abuse often happens within family circles. So, what is your point ? If anything, what truly helps is (1) to have someone you trust to talk about all sorts of things, (2) to lose naivety and (3) to have access to police and social services. By chance, are you aware that sometimes children don't realize that they are being sexually abused and presume that whatever is happening to them is normal until they are told otherwise ? What is the best way to protect those children from their own families if not by letting them interact with other people, including people their families might dislike for all the wrong reasons ?

Beating children is unnecessary. How many times are you going to accuse all parents of beating their children? Are you unwilling to discuss anything besides parents who beat children, because nothing in this thread is about parents beating children except your consistent insistence that parenting = beating children. Parents and guardians are necessary for children, and you seem to be avoiding this truth by changing the subject.

I dare you to point out where I have said that all parents beat their children. I was trying to understand what you meant by 'makes them unnecessary'. So, you meant that parents are not unnecessary ? Sure. But then again I haven't said otherwise.

So...on the one hand you say we mustn't censor any information that children receive, but on the other you say they must be taught what is socially acceptable. You admit they don't know what is socially acceptable. I think you are making progress. Obviously someone has to teach them, and I am saying that person should be someone who knows them not some stranger in an office.

I hope this will clarify what I have been stating all along: Who should teach children ? Everyone. Their parents, their uncles and aunties, their friends, their school teachers, their neighbors....Everyone.

As long as they are not teaching them blatant misinformation or encouraging them to do something illegal, socially unnaceptable or that puts them into major risk.

In modern times particularly in the West people reject the idea that the parents own children, but you are wrong to think that this is a natural belief. Parents have always tended to view children as part of themselves and to also consider them property. There is also a tragic tendency worldwide for families to sell their children into slavery.

You've attempted to accuse me of supporting parents beating children, and you've attempted to accuse me of supporting parents owning children. These are both distractions, showing you aren't able to support your point of view.

(1) I have never claimed anything to be a natural belief.

(2) Yes, parents often view their children as a part of themselves but to actually treat them as property one would have to cross some legal and social lines.

(3) Where have I accused you of supporting child beating ?

(4) Where have I accused you of supporting parents owning children ? I have explicitly said that was my impression and asked you to clarify whether it was accurate. By the way, you haven't clarified it one way or another. I am still waiting for that one.

(5) What point of view have I not supported ? Can you phrase my point of view in your own words ?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Adults are also targets for other kinds of predators. Not to mention that sexual abuse often happens within family circles. So, what is your point ? If anything, what truly helps is (1) to have someone you trust to talk about all sorts of things, (2) to lose naivety and (3) to have access to police and social services. By chance, are you aware that sometimes children don't realize that they are being sexually abused and presume that whatever is happening to them is normal until they are told otherwise ? What is the best way to protect those children from their own families if not by letting them interact with other people, including people their families might dislike for all the wrong reasons ?

Its the first time you've mentioned it in this entire conversation. Maybe the question is what is your point, since you seem to have no real structure to your argument. Are we talking about whether parents should censor what children see or are we talking about parents who beat their children, because I thought I was getting into a conversation about the former. It was a conversation with someone also interested in discussing that. Insinuations and questions are not an argument. We also aren't having a competition between whether its adults who are abused or children. We're talking about children who by nature are under the complete control of parents. I'm supporting the idea that parents should censor what children see and learn. You're opposing that argument. Its not about parents who beat children or whether adults are vulnerable. That all stems from your equivating between adults and children, but children are not adults. Thus we are speaking about them separately from adults.

I dare you to point out where I have said that all parents beat their children. I was trying to understand what you meant by 'makes them unnecessary'. So, you meant that parents are not unnecessary ? Sure. But then again I haven't said otherwise.

Ok, so I'll point it out; but I'm not doing any more of this hunt and search nonsense. Here they are.

Beating used to be a form of parenting as you probably know.

Why even bring this up? Oh well the next quote explains why.

Doesn't make what unnecessary ? Their practices ? Are you suggesting that beating children is not unnecessary ?

(3) Where have I accused you of supporting child beating ?

Previous quote, specifically by bringing this into a conversation that is about something else. Notably I never said anything about beating children, but you implied it. You stopped discussing the topic a long time ago didn't you? It appears you never intended to discuss it and never had a plan for supporting your points other than to distract.

Where have I accused you of supporting parents owning children ? I have explicitly said that was my impression and asked you to clarify whether it was accurate. By the way, you haven't clarified it one way or another. I am still waiting for that one.

Where have I said that I supported this? No, this was your assumption and specifically not what I said. You're searching without a warrant. Just support your points, please, instead of this finger pointing and trying to find out what's in the dark corners of my heart. We've all had parents, and we all have opinions about parenting and whether parents should or shouldn't censor. That's all we're discussing.

 

[Koldo]

Its the first time you've mentioned it in this entire conversation. Maybe the question is what is your point, since you seem to have no real structure to your argument. Are we talking about whether parents should censor what children see or are we talking about parents who beat their children, because I thought I was getting into a conversation about the former. It was a conversation with someone also interested in discussing that. Insinuations and questions are not an argument. We also aren't having a competition between whether its adults who are abused or children. We're talking about children who by nature are under the complete control of parents. I'm supporting the idea that parents should censor what children see and learn. You're opposing that argument. Its not about parents who beat children or whether adults are vulnerable. That all stems from your equivating between adults and children, but children are not adults. Thus we are speaking about them separately from adults.

I will try to clarify my own position to explain how the 'parents beating children' pertains to it:

Bringing up how things are of now, as in how much control parents have over their children has absolutely no bearing on how it should be done from now on.

The structure of an argument either works or it does not. Bringing up how things were was not, historically, a good argument for allowing parents to keep beating their children as much as they wanted since the social perception has majorly shifted. In the same breath, it is also not a good argument, in the name of logical consistency, for keeping further limitations from being placed on how much control parents have over their children.

I have only now mentioned family members abusing children because the scope of your reply has reduced to a very specific point in a particular part of your post.

As I have mentioned before, my general view is that children benefit by being able to learn from multiple people. I have never intended to create a comprehensive list of benefits.

Also, I keep bringing up adults because they have to be used as a frame of reference. You need to justify why whatever circumstance that would, in your mind, allow for children to be controlled ( such as vulnerability to predator ) wouldn't logically entail that adults also ought to be controlled by someone else. If you can't do this, your rationale holds no water.

Ok, so I'll point it out; but I'm not doing any more of this hunt and search nonsense. Here they are.
Why even bring this up? Oh well the next quote explains why.

How exactly is any of that the equivalent to claiming that all parents beat their children ?

Many people thought it was completely fine to beat their children almost as hard as they wanted to educate them. And that much is true as you should know. So how is that the equivalent to claiming that all parents beat their children ?

Previous quote, specifically by bringing this into a conversation that is about something else. Notably I never said anything about beating children, but you implied it. You stopped discussing the topic a long time ago didn't you? It appears you never intended to discuss it and never had a plan for supporting your points other than to distract.

Whenever I bring up a disvantage of allowing parents to have complete control of their children I am literally supporting my main point. For the most of our conversation though what I have been trying to do is to show there is no support for your position.

Where have I said that I supported this? No, this was your assumption and specifically not what I said. You're searching without a warrant. Just support your points, please, instead of this finger pointing and trying to find out what's in the dark corners of my heart. We've all had parents, and we all have opinions about parenting and whether parents should or shouldn't censor. That's all we're discussing.

You have not said you support It, which is why I have explicitly stated that it was my impression and asked you to clarify your views.

If you don't support parents owning children, then why did you bring this point up ? Even if a lot of parents were to treat their children as property, how could this not be one more reason to support my argument ?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Also, I keep bringing up adults because they have to be used as a frame of reference. You need to justify why whatever circumstance that would, in your mind, allow for children to be controlled ( such as vulnerability to predator ) wouldn't logically entail that adults also ought to be controlled by someone else. If you can't do this, your rationale holds no water.

There are similarities between adults and children, however children are born into a controlling situation. A child is naturally controlled by the parent. This difference brings us back to the topic. Parents or guardians exert so much control over children naturally and by natural processes. This is so true that they have to consciously withdraw their control in order to release the children from it. They do not have to take control as would be the case with an adult. There is no equivalency but only similarity in some situations. I do not justify this merely mention that it is so. A child is hypnotically controlled and attached to a parent, but should parents use this to shield them from certain adult knowledge? That is the question. In the case of adult knowledge I think so.

Also, I keep bringing up adults because they have to be used as a frame of reference. You need to justify why whatever circumstance that would, in your mind, allow for children to be controlled ( such as vulnerability to predator ) wouldn't logically entail that adults also ought to be controlled by someone else....

Commenting on this again. That does not logically follow, because adults do not naturally have potential protectors and must fend for ourselves and for children. Children always have protectors, or they die. There is no equivalence. You mention elsewhere you are concerned about abuse within families, but I think that must be handled in other ways than removing all censorship of children's learning.

How exactly is any of that the equivalent to claiming that all parents beat their children ?

Many people thought it was completely fine to beat their children almost as hard as they wanted to educate them. And that much is true as you should know. So how is that the equivalent to claiming that all parents beat their children ?

An inexact quote of what I said. Of course you were never quoted to say such a thing exactly.

Many people thought it was completely fine to beat their children almost as hard as they wanted to educate them. And that much is true as you should know. So how is that the equivalent to claiming that all parents beat their children ?

Just to be clear I never suggested that it was ok for parents to beat children nor for them to own children like slaves.

Whenever I bring up a disvantage of allowing parents to have complete control of their children I am literally supporting my main point. For the most of our conversation though what I have been trying to do is to show there is no support for your position.

Don't skip the fact of nature that parents have complete control of their children, already. I'm not saying this is a great thing. The only question is should they screen children from certain adult knowledge either of violence or sex or some other thing such as religious freedoms.

I think grocery stores should not have pushed skin mags onto their shelves where parents had to take their children. This was disrespectful to the parents.

 

[Koldo]

There are similarities between adults and children, however children are born into a controlling situation. A child is naturally controlled by the parent. This difference brings us back to the topic. Parents or guardians exert so much control over children naturally and by natural processes. This is so true that they have to consciously withdraw their control in order to release the children from it. They do not have to take control as would be the case with an adult. There is no equivalency but only similarity in some situations. I do not justify this merely mention that it is so. A child is hypnotically controlled and attached to a parent, but should parents use this to shield them from certain adult knowledge? That is the question. In the case of adult knowledge I think so.

But where are you trying get by merely pointing how it is ? I don't agree with every thing you have stated on this part but it is ultimately irrelevant because it has no bearing on how things should be.

Commenting on this again. That does not logically follow, because adults do not naturally have potential protectors and must fend for ourselves and for children. Children always have protectors, or they die. There is no equivalence. You mention elsewhere you are concerned about abuse within families, but I think that must be handled in other ways than removing all censorship of children's learning.

How do you get from 'children have natural protectors' to 'therefore it is fine for their protectors to censorship whatever they want' ? Be mindful of appeals to nature.

How do you suggest children reach out for help if their parents can cut off any connections they want ?

An inexact quote of what I said. Of course you were never quoted to say such a thing exactly.

To be more specific, you have said and I quote: "Are you unwilling to discuss anything besides parents who beat children, because nothing in this thread is about parents beating children except your consistent insistence that parenting = beating children. "

Just to be clear I never suggested that it was ok for parents to beat children nor for them to own children like slaves.

Great!

Don't skip the fact of nature that parents have complete control of their children, already. I'm not saying this is a great thing. The only question is should they screen children from certain adult knowledge either of violence or sex or some other thing such as religious freedoms.

I think grocery stores should not have pushed skin mags onto their shelves where parents had to take their children. This was disrespectful to the parents.

I am not skipping it. I am just saying that it is inconsequential as far as determining how things 'should be' goes.

What actual problem is caused by children seeing naked people in a magazine ? Where is the harm ?