Print

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

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

See now, those are modern kids that are given free range to explore; medieval times, kids didn't wander too far from parents.  Too many bad things could happen.  Like say, if kids did behave as you describe, all sorts of horrible things.  Children used to be beaten if they were disobedient, meaning no lever touchy.

And frankly, I didn't poke random buttons when I was little and neither did my brother.

Lies.
I did plenty of stupid stuff as a child, and a parent telling me not to do something was just an added incentive to try and do it and not get caught.
Then you get burnt fingers, broken bones and giant cuts, but that's just life.

[LegoLord]

Again, modern times.  Middle ages, with such a high death toll to begin with, that sort of thing could not be afforded.

[zchris13]

Yeah, some stupid kids died, and then all the others wised up.  Rinse and repeat every 5 years.  a couple extra dead kids a year is okay.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Again, modern times.  Middle ages, with such a high death toll to begin with, that sort of thing could not be afforded.

Well, almost everyone was a catholic, so women were essentially machines for cooking and making babbies.
Actually, not much has changed in the catholic church.

Kids taking risks is entirely natural throughout history. Hardly anyone ever EVER makes it out of childhood without a few scars or broken bones.
If we don't take risks we end up like the Swiss.

[sonerohi]

Again, modern times.  Middle ages, with such a high death toll to begin with, that sort of thing could not be afforded.

Well, almost everyone was a catholic, so women were essentially machines for cooking and making babbies.
Actually, not much has changed in the catholic church.

Kids taking risks is entirely natural throughout history. Hardly anyone ever EVER makes it out of childhood without a few scars or broken bones.
If we don't take risks we end up like the Swiss.

Glad to say no bones broken. Plenty of huge ass cuts, bruises, and bad ideas though. But in the middle ages, they'd probably have a different idea of risky. "Hey william, go yell at that cow! Call it  a knave and a cur!"

[LegoLord]

Oh, no doubt there were injuries.  But that doesn't mean the parent is completely ignoring the child.  There are big differences between ignoring it, overprotecting it, and guiding it appropriately.

[zchris13]

Such a fine line for such a large difference.

[LegoLord]

The lines only appear blurry.  Anyone (mature enough) can look at a parent and say whether they're doing too much or not enough.  People were more mature then (hard not to be) and were actually taught how to rear children.  Most people these days are just told how to make them and have to figure out raising them on their own (which is stupid).

[zchris13]

Stupid or not, I totally want to have my fort destroyed because some of the idiot dwarflets pulled the red lever of doom.  Note the lack of [sarcasm][/sarcasm].

[inaluct]

I like the original idea of this topic. Insanity isn't really bad enough yet.

[Aquillion]

It's easy enough to avoid problems by using double-failsafe switches, with one switch inside a room that's only accessible by pulling another lever to open it, or something along those lines.  You could even just block off your emergency switch-room with a statue so nobody wanders in -- good for dealing with kobolds, too.

[eerr]

what if the lever was more likely to be pulled if the child saw it every day, it was coloured like his toys/or bright and would pull it if he could guess why other dwarves pulled it, and thought it needed pulling.

[Belteshazzar]

Gremlins would likely pull levers for just for the lulz.

Goblins for similar reasons but likely with more intent and an attempt at tactics, 'Oy yew git stop yanken dat one, its choppen up all our boyz!"

Kobalds might if they get curious enough. I mean you covered it in all kinds of shiny so it must be 'special!'

[Hectonkhyres]

The lines only appear blurry.  Anyone (mature enough) can look at a parent and say whether they're doing too much or not enough.  People were more mature then (hard not to be) and were actually taught how to rear children.  Most people these days are just told how to make them and have to figure out raising them on their own (which is stupid).

Yeah. Anyone mature enough can look at a parent and say whether they are doing too much or not enough. The issue is that I may be saying too much while you are saying not enough even when we are looking at the exact same parent with all the same information. Neither of us is necessarily wrong on this matter: it is a matter of priorities and strategy.

I, for example, figure that the point of childhood is to get all the stupid out of your system early and supplying you with what passes for common sense well before you have a chance of causing any real damage through your mistakes. You may, though I don't want to put words in your mouth, feel that the role of childhood is one of careful instruction while keeping the child safe from any significant chance of physical or emotional trauma. Its the Shadows vs Vorlons argument: I lean towards the Shadows.

In the old days, things varied a lot depending on the culture and where in the pecking order your family was. A child born to a noble family would be raised by nannies and rarely even see his or her biological parents... but the thing would be watched like a hawk. In a peasant's hovel, where most families had to endure prior to the modern age and where many still endure, it was a different story. They would receive as little attention as the parents could afford to give it without it being eaten by wild dogs because both parents were too busy with the task of not starving. Subsistence agriculture requires everybody's best efforts. As soon as the child was old enough to stand, he would be working in the fields for twelve hours a day just like the parents.

In the rare, and I mean damn rare, middle class family you might be apprenticed out to somebody who knows a trade. This typically meant many beatings in the course of instruction to emphasize points rather than as punishments and near slavery. They figured that they could literally beat the sense into the boy rather than wasting time letting him figure things out himself.