Comments on: Dependence Day

By: jlhart7

jlhart7 — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:40:57 +0000

Would it even be possible to raise kids without “oppressing” them? I doubt it, but I don’t know what that means for adults’ freedom. I figure that once you’re an adult, no one has the right to oppress you that way, even for your own good. With kids, it is necessary, I think, to be firm sometimes and restrictive even so that they don’t grow up to be assholes. A kid who gets everything he/she wants is a brat; people don’t like being around others who are selfish, and the only way to stop such selfishness from developing is to nip it in the bud when the kids are young by restricting what they do, punishing them, etc. I don’t have kids by the way (nor do I want any, at least for a damn long time).

By: prnsqlr

prnsqlr — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:24:02 +0000

http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com

By: Gnomely

Gnomely — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:46:43 +0000

I believe the soul exists, (I do not care what the eliminative materialists say!) The soul is probably pretty child-like, children it seems are so much closer to the divine spark/mystery.
And really, adult hood is so cumbersome with the accumulation of dead skin that blocks access to the soul. So it is no surprise Jesus said “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3-4
The hell of adulthood (is a blob like demonic-monster that) feasts on the brain, it sucks up the child hood spirit/spark and turns people phony and traps people into a phony status-obsessed world.
Speaking of phony, I remember reading Cather in the Rye. Holden of course did not want children to grow up because adults were phony!

“Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around - nobody big, I mean - except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff - I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I do all day. I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be.”

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:14:30 +0000

For it was Jesus who said something about people turning into children to enter the magical kingdom of heaven.

In which case, maybe we’re preventing them from being in heaven. Which makes sense in a kind of metaphysical sense. In order to incarnate as a physical being, you must be sort of drawn down from the pure spiritual realms. And once you’re here, we try to teach you how to be here without getting yourself killed (floating back to the spiritual realm) by sticking a fork in the toaster or testing out how well the microwave works on your toys.

By: Gnomely

Gnomely — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:52:47 +0000

Maybe instead of a Lord of the Files situation, they would create a magical never never land and erect Michael Jackson/Peter Pan statues all over the island.
For it was Jesus who said something about people turning into children to enter the magical kingdom of heaven.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:50:49 +0000

I have 3 nieces, and the youngest turned out to be very possessive of her toys, food etc. She’d get angry if you tried to take her things away and she wouldn’t share, probably a result of having the older 2 girls around. I had to watch them for my sister years ago and if I left them alone to do their own thing they would try to cook brownies that didn’t turn out so well, and take out all their toys and not clean them up, chips and cookies all over the floor etc. Sometimes they’d fight but if they were all playing in a group together they got along well.

I have a nephew about a year and a half who is smart, clever and curious. If he comes across a problem he usually finds a way around it i.e. moving the end table to reach the phone, pushing a box so he can climb up onto something. He also tries to pickpocket your wallet and he’s sneaky. He’s a daredevil who jumps off the couch and runs around at full speed. You can’t look away for more than a second and he’s into something. He can’t be left alone to his own devices or he’ll wind up getting hurt. He’s governed so his actions don’t get himself injured and so he doesn’t get into something he shouldn’t but he’s like Han Solo and grins and then finds another way around.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:28:55 +0000

I also wonder how children would come out if they raised themselves and each other. Sort of like a Lord of the Flies situation, but without them ever having met or heard of such a thing as an adult. How would they turn out? What would their culture be like, their government?

My guess is not too different…

By: alistair

alistair — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:17:46 +0000

children come with a default setting for joy, passion, inquiry etc. it is us who put the boundaries on. government and religion are fashioned out of the memories our forefathers had for thier parents. as someone posted here recently, the old testement god was a cranky recriminatory parent. the government we have is a raging despotic parent that believes that without total domination we (the children) will burn the house down.
we can`t create a child impervious to the mechanisms of control. all we can do is give them some permission to have flexibility……and hope that they can find a way through the maze like we are trying to do.

By: Allison

Allison — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 02:13:19 +0000

Speaking of pre-programmed children, check out what Osho has to say about that. A lot of food for thought here:

http://oshoworld.com/kids_corner/kids_corner.asp?news_id=ed

And speaking of parenting, ditto:

http://oshoworld.com/kids_corner/kids_corner.asp?news_id=parents

By: Gnomely

Gnomely — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:36:00 +0000

Well, my robotic children might not.

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:59:13 +0000

If I could program into my child I would give it a love for nature, encoraging free play of the imagination, and compassion for animals.

I think they already come like that…

By: Gnomely

Gnomely — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:52:54 +0000

I was thinking if I ever had created an angel/monster child from scratch how would I instill spirituality into it? I think it would be challenging to feed kids an open-ended idea of spirituality—– for, I think children need some foundation other than being brought up with ’spiritual but not religious’ platitudes. But I wouldn’t really want to damage the psyche of a child by forcing it to watching ‘religious themed monster movies’ all day. Heck, should children even be conditioned into believing in God?

Needless to say, I am suprised it is the year 2006 and you can’t buy already programmed robotic children. If I could program into my child I would give it a love for nature, encoraging free play of the imagination, and compassion for animals. “children are hideous monsters which only time could destroy, or children are little angels.” Dr. Dilldeau

By: SubstanceM

SubstanceM — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:53:59 +0000

What is the purpose when a parent tells a child exactly why they are being punished? It is so that the child will internalize the rules and behavior that is desired, so that punishment will become unnecessary. Doesnâ€™t always work, but itâ€™s a great analogy to try to apply to governments and the governed

Ya it’s on to something. So to go to a little deeper, there are societal rules that are enforced, and we are explained why they are in place. Some of them we agree with, some we don’t. Some we obey some we don’t, even knowing the “why” provided by our “daddy”. Because, we also see the hypocrisy of applying those rules - for plenty of examples I’m sure we could all come up with. And so parents determining and enforcing laws for their kids, while unable or unwilling to explain but also erroneously explaining the reasoning, or applying the “do what I say, not what I do” philosophy (and then worse cases of outright abuse etc that I don’t even want to get into) is another level of problem in the analogy, but I think it still fits.
Where it gets most murky is when we get to the ultimate punishments society sees fit for crimes. We don’t accept that parents would incarcerate or beat their children, we can’t envision the child being so wrong in their normal behaviour. But in society, we could allow (agree or not) the death penalty, blaming the “child” not the parents influence on the child. This is not really a new analogy I guess, since I seem to have heard / read the same type of reasoning somewhere before… like whether the US is responsible for creating terrorists or are they just fed up with all their mom and dad’s shit.

Hey Ma and Pa, what the hell is wrong with y’all??? (fishbone)

By: Tim Boucher

Tim Boucher — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:39:39 +0000

I really like that point you made about how one way of envisioning the difference between “good” and “bad” parenting and government has less to do with the punishments or decisions made by the parent on the child’s behalf, than by the ability to explain the decision-making process to the child.

What is the purpose when a parent tells a child exactly why they are being punished? It is so that the child will internalize the rules and behavior that is desired, so that punishment will become unnecessary. Doesn’t always work, but it’s a great analogy to try to apply to governments and the governed.

By: Robbie Rotten - Pop Occulture Magazine

Robbie Rotten - Pop Occulture Magazine — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:35:44 +0000

[...] I’ve been watching a lot of kids’ television shows lately with my niece. Being around kids so much the past couple weeks has really put a lot of things in perspective for me. One show that I’ve found interesting has been LazyTown. [...]

By: SubstanceM

SubstanceM — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:32:14 +0000

I really love the topic of this post, and shit dude u always have a knack for
word-ifying these topics that cross my own mind from time to time.
I will think about this a little more before posting and then respond.
But my first thought is that yes it is a great analogy, and of course it is not an answer to anything because within that microcosm analogy you have all the same issues that make it different on case by case i.e. how wise is the parent to begin with, is there advice and direction sane and sound with all best intention for the kid (because buddha knows there are real stupid fucks having kids too), even if it is best intention, it may backfire. The parent may not get the expected result. Then there are the kids, where the one method may work on one and not on the next, or produce entirely different responses and results in 2 different kids. One may be more capable / intelligent naturally, and so not need the same sets of rules and guidelines as the other. Etc. It’s already pretty messy and we are only talking about 1 family. I was reading the other day about Dr. Carroll Quigley, who is apparently a respected “macro historian” and was a teacher of Bill Clinton’s at Georgetown, who had an impact on his thinking. He talks of an anglophile network of social engineering (British Empire) - not in the sense of conspiracy “lunacy” but as a fact and he is or was a part of the elite insider circle - and how he agrees with their goals but not necessarily the secrecy or the means to the end. So as analogy, you have one parent who may curtail a child’s “freedom”, but may also explain the how’s and why’s of it all to the child. The other may do the same but also not really explain it to the child or just expects obediance…or else… That sounds kind of like good government vs bad government. Anyway, I went on longer then I thought I would here.