Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (72674)	8/20/2003 6:02:57 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Okay. Here's at least one example. If a child on the playground incessantly cheats at games, I think it is acceptable for the other children not only to refuse to play with her, but to taunt her with "chater, cheater" names. If a child on the playground tells frequent lies, I think it is acceptable for children to taunt him with "liar, liar, pants on fire" chants. These are behaviors that the children involved have for some reason chosen to adopt. Adults may want to try to understand why and help the child change his or her behavior. But other children have, I think, the right to response with taunting and names as well as with refusal to play with the child, so that the child will learn that there is a peer group social cost, as well as an adult social cost, to such behavior.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72674)	8/20/2003 6:26:34 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I can't think of one either. While children DO taunt each other, for all kinds of reasons, I don't think it is ever a good idea to buy into it. Adults need to shut that sort of thing down, because there are always better ways of handling disputes. As an adult it is never a good idea to start screaming names at another adult simply because you disagree with them about something, or have a problem with them. We, adults, need to make sure that children grow up to meet a standard higher than just the gut reaction of a wounded or offended child- which is never very careful, or logical- it is usually just a primal impulse about fairness or justice as seen through the eyes of the child's ego- which has little conception/empathy of the ego's of others. While it may feel good or right to a child, and to adults who react like children, it is not the way most of us would like to live in society. Restraint is a part of empathy- since if we can stop, and wait before we react, we can imagine to ourselves reasons why a person might act in a way we do not like, that are not necessarily all that personal to ourselves. Empathy often requires a bit of thought, and in teaching children to stop, before they hurl abuse, we help them on the path to being more caring human beings. Of course some people might not want to be more caring, but I'm not sure I really want to listen to their arguments.