View Single Post
Old 07-30-2009, 08:34 PM   #18
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by Ray Jones View Post
But parents cannot teach 'society' to their kids.
They can teach how to respond to universal issues that do come up.

Originally Posted by RayJ
They can teach moral values, social behaviour, language, any kind of skill, all that jazz, yes. Parents can prepare their kids for many, many things. But the fun thing about offspring is, there's a certain dynamic you cannot control. Like you can say a thousand times don't touch this it is hot, and you can take care like hell, one out of those fifty little creatures will touch it. There are influences you cannot control.
That doesn't mean you don't try to set the child straight when its behavior is incorrect. At this point, the parents must take a proactive role in making sure the child knows enough reasoning of actions and their consequences which follows in order to tell the good choices from the bad; responsible from irresponsible. It may be only basic logic, but it teaches the kids to reason because you will not always be there.

Teaching a kid to "consider a source for what it is" goes a long way for when you're not there as a parent. Longer way than I think you are willing to give credit. No, you can't be there all the time, hoever you can leave a lasting impression on your child in its youth so that it will make responsible decisions as it gets older.

Sometimes it is inevitable the offspring will have to learn the hard way. It's up to the parent to make sure that the hard stuff isn't something deadly, or of lifelong detriment.

Originally Posted by RayJ
I don't blame or bitch, I just say that there's a long list of things which form a human character, and movies and games, media (containing whatever material) in general are part of it, and to me it sounds not to far fetched when I say violence (and anything else for that matter) in the media gives ideals and ideas to the young people, which might not always be 'caught' ideally by the parents.
You might not be able to prevent all incidences, however, you can *manage* the ones that do come up. No child is clever enough to hide these influences completely from a parent who truly cares. Also, you can teach trust-worthiness.

On the other side of it, there is a certain openness needed if you are to minimize the rebelliousness of the offspring at a certain age. To make sure their complacency and resistance to you is not higher than your possible reach as a parent.

Originally Posted by RayJ
Originally Posted by what I said earlier
Having said that, even as much a part of society and as influential as they are, their effects can be effectively supervised and negated regarding child development.
Yeah, you and me, we both would like this to be the truth.
Like it to be the truth? It is a part of society, not society on the whole. Its effects _can_ be negated and managed like any other external medium which requires being acted upon in order to have any effect. That doesn't mean parents have absolute control or that a child won't try to hide things; if you're vigilant though, then not much will get by you.

I'm not exactly sure what's the deal with the turn of phrase--would you care to explain what you meant by that???

Originally Posted by RayJ
Originally Posted by myself
OK, think of it like anything else (alcohol, firearms, etc.): it requires external influence in the first place for it to even have an effect. You already have a grasp of that. You have a point, yes they do have an effect. While it is ever-pervasive, it does not preclude one (or ones as in a family) from making decisions. So while it is everywhere in our society, there is a choice to turn away.
Turning away is a *bad* idea, really. Eventually you'll have to cope with everything that does not fit into your parental plan. Otherwise you will have problems.
Clever, you can dance around the semantics pin.

Since you seem to need it spelled out to you, I shall do it, lest you misinterpret what I said again. No, I was not at all saying that the parents should turn away from doing their job.

The "choice to turn away" is related usage of the object of indulgence.
Idea of:
situation; The object is doing harm?
solution; *Stop* using it, then.

Of course in this situation, we have kids who wouldn't choose to stop indulging (playing), so it is up to the parents to pry their childrens' hands from the controllers/keyboards/etc. when enough is enough.

Originally Posted by RayJ
Odd, that's exactly what some school shooter's thoughts might have been...
Can you spell P A R A N O I A ?

Firstly you weren't in the shooter's head--how would you know that? Did you actually know someone who was a school shooter?

Secondly I think you are making Columbine out to be... much more commonplace than it actually is/was.

So they were a couple kids who claimed they were bad souls? If the individual is a "bad soul" then all you can really do is your absolute best as a parent in that situation.

Can you look at your kindergarten aged kids and *really* see another Columbine in their future (perpetrated by them) for sure? Hmm?

I grew up in an adverse environment. I was an angry child. I got in nasty fights right on up to adulthood. Despite it all, though, I just really wanted to be who I was and came to realize if other people are ********ed up--that is *their* problem. Not mine. My parents had no control over how nasty other kids were to me. I suppose if it got too nasty they could have intervened and taken me out of the system. Found some alternative education.

Consider that an option if you believe the school system your children go to is not adequate, and in your judgment doing real harm. You'll find a way, I've no doubt of it given the concern you've already shown.

Besides, If I were just like those two columbine students, we wouldn't be talking. We'll just leave it at that.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: