Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
Dude I love how you're trying to lay down for me what "the reality" is. I am grinning like hell over here!
You didn't answer the question, started trying to lay down some real talk and veered immediately into strawmen and suggesting that removing one work of literature is equal to abstinence only education and keeping kids in a bubble.
I kinda knew you were reading other shit into what I was saying. Listen. You want to compare this to sex? OK. I'm not talking about abstinence only - I'm talking about preventing your kids from specifically knowing that some people can only cum while being strapped to a table, given a dildo enema, and pierced with hypodermic needles by a 300lb chick dressed as a "sexy nurse".
Do you want chubby medical scat/piercing play in your sex ed class?
Wait, that's the kind of thing you're concerned by? I mean, it doesn't have to be in sex ed, but it's not like that kind of thing amounts to anything further than "Eww, gross!"
You are even further mangling the point, so let's go back to the original question and its expanded version quote above.
A, b, c, or d, and why?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
This is basically my opinion put waaay better than I could myself
I haven't read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but hopefully if I were to have children I'd be able to raise them not to be racist shitheads
That's not the question though. It is actually possible to raise kids who aren't racist shitheads without involving Protocols at all. Given that, why would you want that one specific book to still be an option for your kids?
Reading is generally a good idea, Spoolster:
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
That should address your strawman there.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
my child needs to be hardened to the evils of the world because being a stupid kid is way overrated
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i dont understand i already pointed out why you might read elders - it might come up in a history course
very few things have zero context in which they are informative or useful to be familiar with
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, sex ed isn't about different ways to have sex, it's about the biological processes of sex and how to prepare for and protect yourself during intercourse.
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
This is basically my opinion put waaay better than I could myself
I haven't read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but hopefully if I were to have children I'd be able to raise them not to be racist shitheads
That's not the question though. It is actually possible to raise kids who aren't racist shitheads without involving Protocols at all. Given that, why would you want that one specific book to still be an option for your kids?
Of course it is possible to not involve it. But why would specifically ban the book from your children? If they are to learn and grow as people it is better to be exposed to the good and the bad. Saying that book x would undo everything you have taught them is silly. If they find it and read it you should be fine with that. You should discuss it with them. Give them your opinions on the book or the thoughts held with in. Give them historical background. Use it as a teachable moment about some of the worst of humanity.
The question is "should I prevent my children from reading book x?" And I feel the answer is no.
If my kids, or nephews or nieces or whatever have somehow learned of a thing and want to understand it, there's no real way I'll stop them. But leaving the door open so they can talk about it - unwind that mental tension you get from confronting or scary things - feels appropriate, as does adequate warning going in so they can know there's no shame in stopping when they don't like it.
It also means I'll know when they're embarking on an endeavor, and have some time to Google the counter-arguments.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
What the fuck you got against Legos?
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think it's okay to censor you kids from things until they're mature enough to deal with them. Of course, life has other plans, and you're going to have to confront issues at ages you probably deem inappropriate.
0
Options
Rear Admiral ChocoI wanna be an owl, Jerry!Owl York CityRegistered Userregular
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
This is basically my opinion put waaay better than I could myself
I haven't read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but hopefully if I were to have children I'd be able to raise them not to be racist shitheads
That's not the question though. It is actually possible to raise kids who aren't racist shitheads without involving Protocols at all. Given that, why would you want that one specific book to still be an option for your kids?
Sure, you could totally raise kids fine without that book. I've never even heard of it until now.
My point is that it doesn't have to be an option you choose for them, but there's no reason to actively prevent it from falling in your kid's hands. If they check it out at the library there's no reason to have that much stress over it so long as you take some time to explain the context of it.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a biased position here, but in general the majority of my learning from childhood through to the end of high school was from school itself and from my own self-interest pointing me in different directions and just looking up random shit here and there. If a kid is going to find things out in that manner, it's not really a big deal. Not everything a kid learns has to be handed down from parents or other authority figures. A kid can learn whatever's necessary from his sex-ed classes, but if they go on the internet and learn about some crazy thing it's not like it's that damaging.
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
This is basically my opinion put waaay better than I could myself
I haven't read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but hopefully if I were to have children I'd be able to raise them not to be racist shitheads
That's not the question though. It is actually possible to raise kids who aren't racist shitheads without involving Protocols at all. Given that, why would you want that one specific book to still be an option for your kids?
Reading is generally a good idea, Spoolster:
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
That should address your strawman there.
aahahahhahaa. You're still doing gymnastics around the question, generalizing while I'm asking about specifics. If you could ensure that one book was never discovered, would you do it and which one book would you choose?
That's what I asked. All this other stuff about purging the universe of things, keeping kids in a bubble, and so on are all your invention.
So I'm asking you a, b, c, or d, and why. Further exercise, and reaching back to the original question. Is there any one book which, if I mentioned it, you would choose c? Which book?
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
This is basically my opinion put waaay better than I could myself
I haven't read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but hopefully if I were to have children I'd be able to raise them not to be racist shitheads
That's not the question though. It is actually possible to raise kids who aren't racist shitheads without involving Protocols at all. Given that, why would you want that one specific book to still be an option for your kids?
Reading is generally a good idea, Spoolster:
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
That should address your strawman there.
aahahahhahaa. You're still doing gymnastics around the question, generalizing while I'm asking about specifics. If you could ensure that one book was never discovered, would you do it and which one book would you choose?
That's what I asked. All this other stuff about purging the universe of things, keeping kids in a bubble, and so on are all your invention.
So I'm asking you a, b, c, or d, and why. Further exercise, and reaching back to the original question. Is there any one book which, if I mentioned it, you would choose c? Which book?
I already told you no, what the fuck more do you want?
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I feel really bad for spool right now, because his point is crystal clear to me, and completely reasonable, and you guys are flagrantly misinterpreting it.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Spool I think I have already answered no. I would not choose c. I would rather kids read the books and then feel able to come to me and talk about what they read than fearing of reading a book that is unacceptable according to their parents.
Mazzyx on
0
Options
Rear Admiral ChocoI wanna be an owl, Jerry!Owl York CityRegistered Userregular
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
Dude I love how you're trying to lay down for me what "the reality" is. I am grinning like hell over here!
You didn't answer the question, started trying to lay down some real talk and veered immediately into strawmen and suggesting that removing one work of literature is equal to abstinence only education and keeping kids in a bubble.
I kinda knew you were reading other shit into what I was saying. Listen. You want to compare this to sex? OK. I'm not talking about abstinence only - I'm talking about preventing your kids from specifically knowing that some people can only cum while being strapped to a table, given a dildo enema, and pierced with hypodermic needles by a 300lb chick dressed as a "sexy nurse".
Do you want chubby medical scat/piercing play in your sex ed class?
Wait, that's the kind of thing you're concerned by? I mean, it doesn't have to be in sex ed, but it's not like that kind of thing amounts to anything further than "Eww, gross!"
You are even further mangling the point, so let's go back to the original question and its expanded version quote above.
A, b, c, or d, and why?
B is the absolute ideal. I'd like to be sure they're not getting the wrong idea.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I feel really bad for spool right now, because his point is crystal clear to me, and completely reasonable, and you guys are flagrantly misinterpreting it.
Funny, cause I feel that he's doing the exact same thing.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
the point im getting at is that legos are important
sometimes you just need to let your kids be kids and live in ignorance
they have like 70 years to know about all the terrible shit that goes on in the planet
giving them a few where legos are the zenith of awareness isn't a terrible thing or a disservice to them
My kids are only going to be allowed to play with Legos if they're using them to re-imagine scenes from the Holocaust, The Children's Crusade, or the Japanese internment camps in WWII.
Of course we were all exposed to some age-inappropriate things when we were kids. Does this suggest that we should then accept that all possible things are therefore acceptable to consume at inappropriate ages?
I'm not defining inappropriate because it's different to some extent for all kids, because they are unique people that develop differently from each other.
I guess we're going to need dragging the extreme in here to illustrate the point. Choco, AMFE, those of you who agree. Are you saying that, when considering The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
a) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, even without my knowledge.
b) It would be OK if my kids read this book at some pre-adult age, as long as I was able to talk to them about it.
c) I would prefer my kids never discovered this book before adulthood
d) I would give this book to my kids.
After choosing, please explain why!
For my part, I choose c firstly because it's a disgusting piece of antisemitic filth that does nothing whatsoever to educate my children, and could do much to harm them were I unaware they read it or somehow were convinced it was a valid source to reference. Secondly because why the hell do kids need to be exposed to everything terrible that ever was written?
The reality is that kids will be exposed to things outside of your control. I'd prefer if there was an atmosphere where I can talk to my kids about things that they read. I'd also hope that the way I raise them would prepare them to know that being a racist fuck isn't okay so that they'd have the power to choose not to bother with that shit on their own.
This whole thing seems like a literary version of abstinence only education.
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
This is basically my opinion put waaay better than I could myself
I haven't read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion but hopefully if I were to have children I'd be able to raise them not to be racist shitheads
That's not the question though. It is actually possible to raise kids who aren't racist shitheads without involving Protocols at all. Given that, why would you want that one specific book to still be an option for your kids?
Sure, you could totally raise kids fine without that book. I've never even heard of it until now.
My point is that it doesn't have to be an option you choose for them, but there's no reason to actively prevent it from falling in your kid's hands. If they check it out at the library there's no reason to have that much stress over it so long as you take some time to explain the context of it.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a biased position here, but in general the majority of my learning from childhood through to the end of high school was from school itself and from my own self-interest pointing me in different directions and just looking up random shit here and there. If a kid is going to find things out in that manner, it's not really a big deal. Not everything a kid learns has to be handed down from parents or other authority figures. A kid can learn whatever's necessary from his sex-ed classes, but if they go on the internet and learn about some crazy thing it's not like it's that damaging.
The issue here isn't whether there's a reason to actively prevent it from discovery, but whether there's a reason not to. Granted, this is a hypothetical that's maybe not possible in the real wold, but then again it sort of is possible. But if you could be sure that there was one book your kids never saw, would you?
Are you really arguing that every single thing ever written has enough inherent value to remain a possible distinct reading option despite any adverse effects, and that no things ever written are corrosive enough to prevent a child from reading?
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
I feel really bad for spool right now, because his point is crystal clear to me, and completely reasonable, and you guys are flagrantly misinterpreting it.
Funny, cause I feel that he's doing the exact same thing.
Some books (or movies, for that matter) are inappropriate for children, even in the presence of a parent willing to explain the book.
We all probably have different ideas where to draw that line.
But I hope the idea that there exists some works inappropriate for kids is not an issue of contention.
And admitting that there are some works inappropriate for kids is not the same thing as "putting them in a bubble."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
I though I gave a pretty solid response.
Teens never fucked til Gutenberg and his fucking press. Asshole
You are even further mangling the point, so let's go back to the original question and its expanded version quote above.
A, b, c, or d, and why?
Reading is generally a good idea, Spoolster:
I'll teach my kids that there are things out there that are awful and bad and do my best to prepare them to be able to deal with those kinds of things. Keeping kids in a bubble doesn't do anything and just because I'm not going out of my way to purge their universe of things I find distasteful doesn't mean I'm handing it to them.
That should address your strawman there.
You have more fun when you're stupid.
very few things have zero context in which they are informative or useful to be familiar with
Of course it is possible to not involve it. But why would specifically ban the book from your children? If they are to learn and grow as people it is better to be exposed to the good and the bad. Saying that book x would undo everything you have taught them is silly. If they find it and read it you should be fine with that. You should discuss it with them. Give them your opinions on the book or the thoughts held with in. Give them historical background. Use it as a teachable moment about some of the worst of humanity.
The question is "should I prevent my children from reading book x?" And I feel the answer is no.
Sex in highschool? I WISH! (Okay that was more my shyness at fault than anything, but still, that shyness had to come from somewhere!)
I think Twilight was mentioned earlier.
If my kids, or nephews or nieces or whatever have somehow learned of a thing and want to understand it, there's no real way I'll stop them. But leaving the door open so they can talk about it - unwind that mental tension you get from confronting or scary things - feels appropriate, as does adequate warning going in so they can know there's no shame in stopping when they don't like it.
It also means I'll know when they're embarking on an endeavor, and have some time to Google the counter-arguments.
Sure, you could totally raise kids fine without that book. I've never even heard of it until now.
My point is that it doesn't have to be an option you choose for them, but there's no reason to actively prevent it from falling in your kid's hands. If they check it out at the library there's no reason to have that much stress over it so long as you take some time to explain the context of it.
Maybe I'm just speaking from a biased position here, but in general the majority of my learning from childhood through to the end of high school was from school itself and from my own self-interest pointing me in different directions and just looking up random shit here and there. If a kid is going to find things out in that manner, it's not really a big deal. Not everything a kid learns has to be handed down from parents or other authority figures. A kid can learn whatever's necessary from his sex-ed classes, but if they go on the internet and learn about some crazy thing it's not like it's that damaging.
aahahahhahaa. You're still doing gymnastics around the question, generalizing while I'm asking about specifics. If you could ensure that one book was never discovered, would you do it and which one book would you choose?
That's what I asked. All this other stuff about purging the universe of things, keeping kids in a bubble, and so on are all your invention.
So I'm asking you a, b, c, or d, and why. Further exercise, and reaching back to the original question. Is there any one book which, if I mentioned it, you would choose c? Which book?
I would say that legos>Kony 2012. One of these is productive the other leads to masturbation in public.
This requires a nerf sword duel.
Jacking it jacking it jackity jack
I already told you no, what the fuck more do you want?
Feel free to substitute for another book, if you feel like reading that one has some objective value.
neat
all of you who are saying dumb things, shut up
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
nothing
the point im getting at is that legos are important
sometimes you just need to let your kids be kids and live in ignorance
they have like 70 years to know about all the terrible shit that goes on in the planet
giving them a few where legos are the zenith of awareness isn't a terrible thing or a disservice to them
B is the absolute ideal. I'd like to be sure they're not getting the wrong idea.
Funny, cause I feel that he's doing the exact same thing.
My kids are only going to be allowed to play with Legos if they're using them to re-imagine scenes from the Holocaust, The Children's Crusade, or the Japanese internment camps in WWII.
The issue here isn't whether there's a reason to actively prevent it from discovery, but whether there's a reason not to. Granted, this is a hypothetical that's maybe not possible in the real wold, but then again it sort of is possible. But if you could be sure that there was one book your kids never saw, would you?
Are you really arguing that every single thing ever written has enough inherent value to remain a possible distinct reading option despite any adverse effects, and that no things ever written are corrosive enough to prevent a child from reading?
Some books (or movies, for that matter) are inappropriate for children, even in the presence of a parent willing to explain the book.
We all probably have different ideas where to draw that line.
But I hope the idea that there exists some works inappropriate for kids is not an issue of contention.
And admitting that there are some works inappropriate for kids is not the same thing as "putting them in a bubble."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.