Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[0x517A5D]

kids should learn about violence and other unpleasent things, the earlier the better, assuming that the kid doesn't start thinking that murder is cool...

Decisions on when and how much are purely up to the parents.  Butt out.

Also, don't necro threads that are a year and a half old.

[G-Flex]

The posts prior to his were made in April of this year. Just FYI.

[jaked122]

Haha, that's really cool.  I'm amazed that a 5-year-old had the patience to learn DF's interface.

He's still in his formative years, right? Probably easier at that age than any other. Probably also acts as an incentive to learn to read + he is learning the layout of a keyboard, I imagine in the future he will have an easy time of learning to type. Also, he is 'learning' many other things that he and his parents have no idea of, like the OP mentioned.

this is great the 5 year old has begun playing this somewhat violent game, no seriously I do mean it. the blood is red, and well, how'd he know what stangling a cougur would look like

[Kruniac]

kids should learn about violence and other unpleasent things, the earlier the better, assuming that the kid doesn't start thinking that murder is cool...

Decisions on when and how much are purely up to the parents.  Butt out.

Also, don't necro threads that are a year and a half old.

This thread is such a joke, it needs to not only be necroed, but stickied. Roflmao.

...ROFLMAO.

[Rowanas]

Well, since it got a taste of the necro, I figure I may as well join in. Just because it's up to the parents, doesn't mean they're right. In Holland sex and drugs are taught about way more, and as a result they get less teenage pregnancies and weed is freely available. When suggested to American parents, they said no. Our kids grow up stupid and repressed as a result. The Americans allow their kids to be taught abstinence, and they suffer for it.

Essentially, while a parent has the right to decide things for their child, they shouldn't have the right to deny them facts of life (in this case, the blood and murder)

[G-Flex]

You can't make statements in such an absolute fashion, though.

In general, sure, but not absolutely. I think it's perfectly reasonable to deny, say, a two-year-old knowledge of murder.

[Grimlocke]

Well, Dutch guy here, so I guess I can confirm what rowanas said. They teach us about sex, drugs, smoking, booze, etc. quite early and detailed here. Though I dont realy know what and how they teach in other countries, so comparsion is hard.

Though im not sure about the educative value of smileys with a red background, it could hardly harm even a 5 year old.

Well as long he doesnt read all the dismembered limbs and chunks and blood and gore

[Bloogonis]

to answer your question, americans teach about the stuff a bit too late, I knew about sex in elementary school, I knew really what it was/meant to have sex in middle school. they dont have sex ed classes till half way t hrough middle school and its half arsed, one day during gym and your done, by that time, some kids are already sexualy active, by the time they offer a more detailed an comprehensive course in highschool you already have one PT in the school. granted I went to a rough school for the area, but that tilts cause we are one of the best school districts in the nation.

so ya, I think teaching is a must, it clearly hurts the kids not to know, especially when they start to rebel against overly protective parents.

Blood and murder, yes I agree you dont have to let them know about it, but in order to prevent them from learning about it. You must keep them from seeing the news and many TV shows, pretty much all videogames, (OMG Mario just killed that turtle!) kids are smart they pick stuff up far easier then we adults do, maybe Im assuming to much there. The kid at this point probably knows all of this stuff to a limited degree already. you just have to guide the kid and make sure they know that killing is wrong 99% of the time and that make-believe isnt reality. then it makes it much easyer to explain your fixation with whips and latex 

[Rowanas]

You just have to guide the kid and make sure they know that killing is wrong 20% of the time and that make-believe isn't reality.

fix'd

[G-Flex]

... Huh? I'm going to have to ask why exactly you think killing is morally justified four out of the five times it happens.

[Rowanas]

Bear with me

Given the fact that our world cannot sustain our population, and that we will not curb our breeding, it is the job of the murderers and bombers, soldiers and suicidals to do every little bit possible to keep us from encroaching ever more upon the planet upon which we live. As space becomes tight and more of our resources are used up, we must turn ever more to reducing our impact on the earth. Greener production only halts waste, it does not halt standard use of the resources. Only asceticism and depopulation can help us in those goals, and hey, if you want to try getting the decadent West to go ascetic, be my guest. The wrong killings are performed against people who would have contributed more than the resources they took. Maybe 20% was a little generous, I revise my estimate: 95% are justified.

[G-Flex]

Bear with me

Given the fact that our world cannot sustain our population, and that we will not curb our breeding, it is the job of the murderers and bombers, soldiers and suicidals to do every little bit possible to keep us from encroaching ever more upon the planet upon which we live.

This is completely bogus. Seriously.

For one thing, population tends to be more self-controlling than you give it credit for.

For another, overpopulation is actually a hugely overrepresented problem. There's a ton of free land still available on Earth, even if certain parts are overpopulated, and modern first-world nations tend to have birth rates teetering almost BELOW the replacement rate; in other words, damn near no population growth at all aside from immigration.

The solution to population growth is to, over time, lessen the economic gap between the developed and the underdeveloped nations. People in underdeveloped nations tend to have kids for actual economic reasons a lot of the time, even, and murder doesn't solve that.

The wrong killings are performed against people who would have contributed more than the resources they took.

You are advocating the cold-blooded murder of every single human being on this planet who is disabled, infirm, or otherwise unable to contribute whichever arbitrary resources you are using as a benchmark.


You are taking an actual problem (overpopulation), overstating it like crazy, misrepresenting (or flat-out ignoring) its actual causes and possible remedies, and advocating murder as a solution despite the fact that it obviously isn't working where it needs to and that the social unrest caused by things like murder will help to prevent a society from ever reaching further economic development and curbing their population growth in the first place, helping to keep them in the same damn place they've been, and still overpopulating themselves.


I just can't believe you'd come to such bizarre and antisocial (I mean that in the psychiatric sense; you're advocating wanton murder) conclusions even though you haven't actually done enough research to get the basic facts right. Humans can "curb their breeding", and in much of the world, we already have. Seriously, if you think you're reaching conclusions that rail against all our basic concepts of human rights and so forth, you should at least make sure your facts are straight.

[Rowanas]

Actually, having done my research (technically I got someone else to do it and am using his findings) the earth could sustain about 4 billion people at a modest standard of life. We have 6 billion at last count, and we are not living modestly.

We aren't curbing our breeding, the fact that the rate of childbirth has actually gone up since 1960 (cutting out the boom after WW2) shows that we aren't curbing it and our medical advances are keeping the infirm alive far longer than is wise.

While there is land available, who is going to volunteer to go and live in the nice open areas of Siberia or Alaska or Africa? sure, we have the space, hell, we could even manage with the resources, but we WON'T, and in order to balance out the greed of the world, we need to make sure that there are less people to be greedy. I'm all for saving everyone (nearly) and making us all less avaricious, but it's not going to happen, so plan B is in order.

Regardless of why the problem happens, it's still ongoing. Giving poorer countries more money will only exacerbate the problem unless we can get them going straight to renewable, clean, recyclable means of production.

I'm not ignoring the solutions, I'm saying that while they might exist, they aren't being used, and extra bodies on the heap is the only way to do it, because it's forced, rather than optional. because we have democracy, any push to force people into leading better lives is met with out and out rejection. The various car taxes put in place for the goo of the environment are (violently in cases) pushed aside and the government labelled as morons or worse, and then voted out. Humanity needs to simmer down and accept that it can't just grow and grow and take over everything, but we won't, so we should be forced to. Depopulation would slow expansion and resource demand, so it's a good thing.

Oh, and setting up colonies on other planets is just plain irresponsible until we can learn to be at peace with this one.

[G-Flex]

Actually, having done my research (technically I got someone else to do it and am using his findings) the earth could sustain about 4 billion people at a modest standard of life. We have 6 billion at last count, and we are not living modestly.

We aren't curbing our breeding, the fact that the rate of childbirth has actually gone up since 1960 (cutting out the boom after WW2) shows that we aren't curbing it and our medical advances are keeping the infirm alive far longer than is wise.

You could try to look at trends slightly longer-term than, say, the past 40-50 years.

While there is land available, who is going to volunteer to go and live in the nice open areas of Siberia or Alaska or Africa?

Even the US has a ton of open space, especially out west. A lot of it is being used for, well, nothing at all.

sure, we have the space, hell, we could even manage with the resources, but we WON'T, and in order to balance out the greed of the world, we need to make sure that there are less people to be greedy. I'm all for saving everyone (nearly) and making us all less avaricious, but it's not going to happen, so plan B is in order.

Your "Plan B" evidently isn't working, unless you mean instigating more mass-killing of the populace, which goes against human nature and is at least as unlikely, and a hell of a lot more barbaric, than Plan A in the first place.

Regardless of why the problem happens, it's still ongoing. Giving poorer countries more money will only exacerbate the problem unless we can get them going straight to renewable, clean, recyclable means of production.

I didn't say "give poor countries more money". Hell, sometimes that can be counterproductive because it can prevent the population there from self-regulating. They need to be industrialized and the modernized world needs to stop keeping them in their place by taking advantage of them economically. Renewable, clean energy is a plus, but as evidenced by the US and Japan, not strictly necessary, at least not to curb population growth.

I'm not ignoring the solutions, I'm saying that while they might exist, they aren't being used, and extra bodies on the heap is the only way to do it, because it's forced, rather than optional.

Wait, so you can force population cleansing and ritualized mass-murder, but you CAN'T force any other methods? All you're telling me is "We aren't going to do X, so let's do Y instead" even though Y isn't happening either and probably won't. The world's governments, quite simply, will resort to other forced methods of population control before they resort to mass murder.

because we have democracy, any push to force people into leading better lives is met with out and out rejection. The various car taxes put in place for the goo of the environment are (violently in cases) pushed aside and the government labelled as morons or worse, and then voted out.

I somehow doubt that people will democratically choose to start mass-murdering their own populace. I think people would have a problem with that at least as much as they have a problem with a gasoline tax.

Humanity needs to simmer down and accept that it can't just grow and grow and take over everything, but we won't, so we should be forced to. Depopulation would slow expansion and resource demand, so it's a good thing.

Even if this is true, there are other ways to force this.

Oh, and setting up colonies on other planets is just plain irresponsible until we can learn to be at peace with this one.

I don't think anybody even mentioned that, and that's far enough in the future that it hardly matters. But I agree.

[Rowanas]

Oh, I didn't say mass killing. Please, I'm no hitler. I just acknowledge that the occasional body here or there isn't going to hurt the world. slaughtering huge numbers is the best solution, or just plain wiping man off the face of the earth, but that's not going to happen.

Anyway, it has been fun arguing hypothetical mass murder with you, but I'm sleepy. Enjoy the night/day whatever.