It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Extolling Keeping Children Ignorant

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
What is the ultimate job of a parent?

I believe the ultimate job of a parent is to help children to adapt to their environment. I'm using the following definition of "adapt":


to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose

LINK


How does keeping children ignorant help them to adapt to their environment?

Parents often say that childhood should be a time for children to "find themselves" without being burdened too much by the harshness of reality. I see a major problem with that...

If you "find yourself" in an artificial environment, does that help you once you're plunged into the real world?

I don't know about you, but it didn't help me in terms of adapting to my environment. My parents did a great job of helping me to "find myself" in my childhood (in an artificial environment), but that didn't adapt me for life in society in any way. I'm speaking from my personal experience here.

I question what parents are doing when they only expose their children to cartoons, lie to their children about fairy tales being true (Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, etc.), and spoil children to the point where a narcissistic-type view of themselves develops. All of those things are maladaptive. It's the exact opposite of what parents should be doing.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The real world, this construct, is a sick and twisted place. I would rather see children brought up in a moral and ethical manner with discipline, it develops character and I think tends to produce a majority of adults who have at least a certain amount of respect and empathy towards others.

To subject children too early to the real world would create narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths with an entitlement attitude, no conscience and no consideration for others. I don't think that is a good thing, but of course the indoctrination system thinks otherwise. Insanity is the new normal.

Their is no virtue in being sane in an insane world, it seems.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
What is the ultimate job of a parent?

I believe the ultimate job of a parent is to help children to adapt to their environment. I'm using the following definition of "adapt":


to change (something) so that it functions better or is better suited for a purpose

LINK


How does keeping children ignorant help them to adapt to their environment?

Parents often say that childhood should be a time for children to "find themselves" without being burdened too much by the harshness of reality. I see a major problem with that...

If you "find yourself" in an artificial environment, does that help you once you're plunged into the real world?

I don't know about you, but it didn't help me in terms of adapting to my environment. My parents did a great job of helping me to "find myself" in my childhood (in an artificial environment), but that didn't adapt me for life in society in any way. I'm speaking from my personal experience here.

I question what parents are doing when they only expose their children to cartoons, lie to their children about fairy tales being true (Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, etc.), and spoil children to the point where a narcissistic-type view of themselves develops. All of those things are maladaptive. It's the exact opposite of what parents should be doing.


The worst thing a parent or parents who truly love their minor children can do is trust another person or agency to care for them or their kids.

If you as a kid and as a parent have never been financially poor before and then you become so as a parent, you are screwed beyond belief because not only are you psychologically unprepared having had to never really go without, once you're poor, even the agencies can't provide the financial relief needed. Then your immersed into a world among cut throat highly emotional criminals and really manipulative people who take advantage of you with low paying jobs, high rent, who try to get into your pants all the time.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I couldn't agree more. If you want your child to be a productive part of society, they should be taught about society. They should experience what is real, not what is "safe".

I have a feeling the reason children are coddled into fantasy driven automatons, is because subconsciously they don't want their kids to live in this world. They see their children as these innocent vessels, pure and whole. The world has tainted themselves and they try their hardest not to bring that to their children, but...it's absolutely futile and counter-productive.

I have a feeling the majority of parents don't even realize how destructive that kind of parenting is. It's really sad that we live in the kind of world where our children are more deserving of a good life than we are, that we'd rather make them believe in fantasy, than reality.

It's a true testament to the prevailing debauchery of society as a whole.

We've become a world of "Do what thou wilt" instead of "Do what you ought"
edit on 29-6-2016 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
To subject children too early to the real world would create narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths with an entitlement attitude, no conscience and no consideration for others.


"To subject children too early to the real world"

I didn't write anything like that. I wrote that parents should adapt their children to their environment. How did you jump to the conclusion that that means "to subject children too early to the real world"?

I believe the process of adapting someone to an environment does not require access to the actual environment at all (with possible exceptions). For instance, you could learn to become a gourmet chef in your kitchen at home without ever stepping into a gourmet restaurant.

Consider the farming industry. Probably since the beginning of the time children have helped their parents on the family farm. The children were dealing with the real world, as real as it gets. Have you ever heard of that turning the children of farmers into "narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths with an entitlement attitude, no conscience and no consideration for others"? I haven't.


originally posted by: WhiteWingedMonolith
The worst thing a parent or parents who truly love their minor children can do is trust another person or agency to care for them or their kids.


Unfortunately, with CPS kidnapping children, lots of innocent people have no choice.

Former Foster Parent Exposes How CPS Kidnaps Kids Away from Good Homes – Puts them on Drugs

When CPS Kidnaps Children for Money

Child Protective Services Stealing & Sex Trafficking Children Stories Could Get You Killed – But They Must Be Exposed


originally posted by: Aedaeum
I couldn't agree more. If you want your child to be a productive part of society, they should be taught about society. They should experience what is real, not what is "safe".


The idea that there is a "safe" environment is an illusion. The future is now. Fostering an erroneous belief system about the world can't help children, in the short term or the long term in my opinion. I believe in the long run it is disastrous because reality always wins out in the end over delusion, eventually.
edit on 29-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
To subject children too early to the real world would create narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths with an entitlement attitude, no conscience and no consideration for others.


"To subject children too early to the real world"

I didn't write anything like that. I wrote that parents should adapt their children to their environment. How did you jump to the conclusion that that means "to subject children too early to the real world"?

I believe the process of adapting someone to an environment does not require access to the actual environment at all (with possible exceptions). For instance, you could learn to become a gourmet chef in your kitchen at home without ever stepping into a gourmet restaurant.

Consider the farming industry. Probably since the beginning of the time children have helped their parents on the family farm. The children were dealing with the real world, as real as it gets. Have you ever heard of that turning the children of farmers into "narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths with an entitlement attitude, no conscience and no consideration for others"? I haven't.


originally posted by: WhiteWingedMonolith
The worst thing a parent or parents who truly love their minor children can do is trust another person or agency to care for them or their kids.


Unfortunately, with CPS kidnapping children, lots of innocent people have no choice.

Former Foster Parent Exposes How CPS Kidnaps Kids Away from Good Homes – Puts them on Drugs

When CPS Kidnaps Children for Money

Child Protective Services Stealing & Sex Trafficking Children Stories Could Get You Killed – But They Must Be Exposed


originally posted by: Aedaeum
I couldn't agree more. If you want your child to be a productive part of society, they should be taught about society. They should experience what is real, not what is "safe".


The idea that there is a "safe" environment is an illusion. The future is now. Fostering an erroneous belief system about the world can't help children, in the short term or the long term in my opinion. I believe in the long run it is disastrous because reality always wins out in the end over delusion, eventually.


It sounded like you were on the pro side of exposing children to the real world, my apologies if I read wrong.

You are correct that cps does need to be exposed for the unethical, immoral and criminal behavior. Their business model to create their own relevancy is supported by their actually stealing children from good homes and placing them in others so they can support their jobs. They find the infractions they create under every rock and behind every door.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I agree.
if they see hard/evil/sick things all the time.
they can not see them as any thing but Normal!

see kiddy Porn/Rape All the time you slowly get use't to it.
just like all the killing porn and swearing.

Yes Long ago swearing was a bad thing.
hard to belive that yes?
I am Old so I remember when swearing was a bad thing.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Then we are in complete agreement



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I read your post a few times and I have to admit I don't fully understand what you are trying to say (although perhaps I'm just a bit thick). I will say that it seems thoughtful and sincere which is why I'm responding.

I think A job of a parent to is help "adapt" their children to their environment but that is just one aspect of the big picture. Parents also teach their kids how to play well with others. Parents also teach their kids right from wrong. Parents also teach their kids that it is ok to try things and it is ok to fail sometimes. Parents also teach their kids it's good to dream (so long as they don't get carried away).

Speaking from my own experience, our son is 4 1/2 so we have met many, MANY parents at Mommy & Me and at Soccer practice and at his Nursery School and Pre-K and I have never, EVER heard a parent say that they want to help their children "find themselves." I'm wondering, do you have any kids of your own? Maybe you are talking about much older kids (teens or young adults)?

I'm thinking you are talking about parents of younger kids because you said...



I question what parents are doing when they only expose their children to cartoons, lie to their children about fairy tales being true (Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, etc.),


I can't speak for what other parents (even ones that we know well) do when they are at home, but I don't know of any parents that ONLY expose their children to cartoons. In practical application, there are some crumby parents that just plop their kid in front of a TV and let the TV be the babysitter but most parents that I've met allow kids to watch some cartoons but also take them to the local Children's Museum and take them to sports and take them to a fair or carnival or any number of other things.

To the bit about Santa Clause, and I'm not phrasing this to be aggressive but just saying what my reaction is..... So what? So kids can believe in Santa for a few early years? So they can believe there is some magic in this world for a short time. So what? Let them believe in something for a while. Why is that so bad?

When a kid pretends he is a super hero and pretends to zap us with their laser eyes, are we wrong to pretend we are being zapped? Are we supposed to correct them and say, "No, little fella, there's no such thing."

Further, kids (even young kids) can be taught that there are others out there that are in need of help. Since he started nursery school there have been food drives and I was pleasantly surprised when my (at the time) 3 1/2 year old told me that we needed to bring in carrots to give to other kids that don't have food. (He was little and loved carrots so to him food = carrots.... he also didn't understand that food pantries needed canned goods but the thought of helping others was there). Incidentally, this same nursery school was visited by Santa in December. My point is, there is a balance that, based on your post, I'm not sure you appreciate.




and spoil children to the point where a narcissistic-type view of themselves develops.


I'm with you on that one. I see it sometimes, even in the younger children. You can see the "my little angel" parents and you can predict with almost certainty what the future will be like. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't think so. That's why, personally, I find it not only OK but GOOD when my son loses sometimes or things don't work out the way he thinks/wants them too. He is learning so much from things going sideways (in his mind, anyway).

It's also why he learned from a young age the difference between short term gratification and delayed gratification. Since FOREVER he has to put his toys away at the end of the night (albeit he puts them away messily but he's just a little guy). He knows that if he does what is asked, on Saturday when we are all out running errands, he will get a toy (not necessarily something elaborate... maybe a single car or water gun or whatever). He knows that if he does NOT do what is asked, he will NOT get anything. I'm oversimplifying here, but I'm hoping you catch my drift.

Also, aren't ALL environments artificial environments? To this day when I'm at work, depending on what meeting I'm in or who I'm with, I have to change/adapt/edit what I say versus what I'd like to say and how I'd like to act. It's all artificial.

Disclaimer: Again, it's possible I didn't fully understand what you were trying to convey in your OP.



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: Profusion

I couldn't agree more. If you want your child to be a productive part of society, they should be taught about society. They should experience what is real, not what is "safe".



I agree too.

Childhood is actually a fairly new concept. Often children were put to work at least as young as 6, some even younger.

I'm not raising a child, I'm raising a future adult.

I am a realist. I do try to make sure my child is happy and gets useful play time. I don't currently own a TV.

He's 8 and already selling stuff on Ebay. Mostly so he can buy stuff on Ebay - - but, its a start LOL.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

I attempted to write answers to all of your questions. Then, I realized sometimes people are just too far apart to debate a topic.

a reply to: Annee

I have a question for you that's related to parenting. What's your opinion of the following (which I wrote for another thread)?

There should be an age of consent for changing one's gender. Children should not be having their gender changed by their parents; it is child abuse in my opinion. There is an age of consent for sex because people under a certain age have no comprehension of sex, and they do not have the ability to take responsibility for the consequences of sex. How is having one's gender changed any different? I believe having one's parents attempt to change their gender is one of the most drastic and potentially damaging things that can ever happen to a person. It should be illegal for parents to change their children's gender because children cannot consent to it. I don't know what the age of consent for a gender change should be, but children should not be subjected to it, ever. When it comes to a sex change or any gender change, children have no way of comprehending what they're doing or what the consequences of their actions are.

Children do not have the ability to consent to a gender change. Therefore, allowing parents to change their child's gender is morally and ethically wrong, and it should be illegal.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The question is what do they need to learn, when do they need to learn it, and in what context is that knowledge brought up to them?

I think pretty much all of us agree that a child needs to learn about sex, but after that, I would guess quite a few of us diverge on the best way to approach that.

Generally, when these discussions begin, however, the accusation is that those who do not favor the same approach you do are keeping their children "ignorant."



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Look at the posters in the threads linked to below who seem to want to keep children ignorant about all the brutal truths of life. In my experience, people often try to make this issue just about sex education. But, it's clearly about everything. So many of the comments in the following threads reveal a belief that children should be kept ignorant about anything that's potentially disheartening, I found it be depressing. I believe the children of parents with that point of view have a huge disadvantage over those who do not.

Is the information age ruining children's optimism?

How would you explain 'the truth movement' to a child?

Explain "Clinton versus Trump" to a kindergarten class



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Why would I explain Trump v. Clinton to my 5-year-old? Is it something he needs to know at the moment? He's busy being a 5-year-old. He has no interest in it.

Now, I know by the time he hits 3rd, 4th, 5th grade in school, he'll have started to learn about history including things like Watergate and then it'll be time to start explaining things about the political discussions his father and I have all the time. But right now, his main concern is robots and electronics. I am not going to load up his head with politics until he's ready to express an interest in them.

But I used sex education because it was the most obvious example. And you proved my point. It isn't so much that people want their children to never know about things (ie be truly ignorant), it's just that we all disagree about how and when a child should be taught about them.
edit on 1-7-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What does 'extolling' mean?

Never mind - I have looked on google and found:

British English: extol VERB
If you extol something or someone, you praise them enthusiastically.
To praise the good qualities of someone or something.


I don't think praising children keeps them ignorant.

edit on 1-7-2016 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
a reply to: eluryh22

I attempted to write answers to all of your questions. Then, I realized sometimes people are just too far apart to debate a topic.

a reply to: Annee

I have a question for you that's related to parenting. What's your opinion of the following (which I wrote for another thread)?

There should be an age of consent for changing one's gender. Children should not be having their gender changed by their parents; it is child abuse in my opinion. There is an age of consent for sex because people under a certain age have no comprehension of sex, and they do not have the ability to take responsibility for the consequences of sex. How is having one's gender changed any different? I believe having one's parents attempt to change their gender is one of the most drastic and potentially damaging things that can ever happen to a person. It should be illegal for parents to change their children's gender because children cannot consent to it. I don't know what the age of consent for a gender change should be, but children should not be subjected to it, ever. When it comes to a sex change or any gender change, children have no way of comprehending what they're doing or what the consequences of their actions are.

Children do not have the ability to consent to a gender change. Therefore, allowing parents to change their child's gender is morally and ethically wrong, and it should be illegal.


You are 100% completely wrong.

Gender is in the brain. A Gender Dysphoric child is no different then a Gender Dysphoric adult.

They know who they are. Early treatment (psychological) is important. A young Gender Dysphoric child is not medicated.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Can you prove that's true? What's your answer to the following?


A noted Princeton University professor has attacked the very notion of transgenderism, saying that the belief “that a woman can be trapped inside a man’s body” is ludicrous and superstitious, with no basis in medical fact.

Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, sent out a tweet late Sunday evening questioning the science behind the transgender movement, in reaction to the Obama administration’s threatening letter to educators mandating accommodation of gender-confused teenagers.

LINK



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
a reply to: Annee

Can you prove that's true? What's your answer to the following?


A noted Princeton University professor has attacked the very notion of transgenderism, saying that the belief “that a woman can be trapped inside a man’s body” is ludicrous and superstitious, with no basis in medical fact.

Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, sent out a tweet late Sunday evening questioning the science behind the transgender movement, in reaction to the Obama administration’s threatening letter to educators mandating accommodation of gender-confused teenagers.

LINK


There are several threads on Gender Dysphoria (transgender).

You can find all information in one of those threads.

This Robert P. George? He's slightly "slanted".



Robert P. George: Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom Cannot Coexist

Most of those arguing in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples do not understand, or even know, the arguments of those who oppose the redefinition of marriage, George claimed. They assume there are no reasonable arguments against gay marriage and those who oppose it are simply driven by hatred of gays.
Read more at www.christianpost.com... more at www.christianpost.com...



edit on 1-7-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if we were going to debate. I was just curious what you were getting at.

No problem. Next time.




top topics



 
4

log in

join