48 réponses à ce sujet

[ParthianShotX]

The funny part about this? The person talking about supervising their child, K1LL STREAK, is actually making a fair rebuttal and is not using a logical fallacy, despite him having differing thoughts on the matter than I do. Funny that no one is really arguing his point, but rather pointing out the logical fallacies of either you, AbyssMessiah, or TheThirdRace. I wonder why that is?

 

For my part, it's because I agree with K1LLSTREAK at least on one very important particular:  it's never worthwhile to argue with parents about how they raise their children.  I personally believe that those who have strong views on child rearing should spawn and put them to use rather than inflicting them on other parents or continue to employ them at home (if they already have children).   Religion, politics and raising children --  you can rarely persuade anyone they are wrong on any of these topics.  I also think it's bad manners to judge someone else's choices.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

Argumentum ad lapidem? How preposterous.

I had to look that up.

[Kalas Magnus]

i just mute them.

[DrKilledbyDeath]

The funny part about this? The person talking about supervising their child, K1LL STREAK, is actually making a fair rebuttal and is not using a logical fallacy, despite him having differing thoughts on the matter than I do. Funny that no one is really arguing his point, but rather pointing out the logical fallacies of either you, AbyssMessiah, or TheThirdRace. I wonder why that is?

 

I will say this much though: You admit that you are not going to engage because it will end up arguing with with a brick wall. I take that to mean that if the person countering you does not concede, then they are the brick wall?

 

I love the Argumentum ad lapidem. It's great! That, along with Proof By Assertion are my favourite two logical fallacies. Any guess as to why?

Just to clarify it was a blanket statement, not directed at anyone specifically. Just a general musing. If people want to take it as more than that, your problem not mine.

 

In regards to not wanting to waste my time further engaging the topic, I'm sure you do not live under a rock. Group mentality (regardless of how incredibly wrong it can be) will trump common sense and logic. A small number of quiet intelligent people can't do much to sway a larger group of loud idiots once they have dug their feet in (again, general statement, no one should take this personally; if you want an example why not read up about the American gov't and global warming). There are times where I will take a firm stance and be willing to speak in depth about a subject due to my perception of it's importance, regardless of how useless it can be in swaying any opinion. There are other topics where I may be very opinionated on it, but it really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things, so why bother? You call it Argumentum ad lapidem, I call it preserving my sanity.

[MadLewts]

Name me a single business where people send their children and then they are left unsupervised to mix with other adults freely, and, even though everything they do and say could easily be recorded and reviewed, its not.  For EA to produce and sell a virtual playground with virtually no rules or accountability should be criminal.

 

To the guy refusing to argue with the local idiots, welcome to sanity.  Post your peace and move on with your life, words to live and die by.

[AbyssMessiah]

This is a logical fallacy known as a Straw Man, related to Reductio ad absurdum. If a parent doesn't excessively shelter their child, then they must be buying them porn and booze as a means to prepare them for life.

See, by avoiding the grey area in between you thus attempt to illustrate the absurdity of your opponents argument, and in doing so make an absurd claim yourself. This is a sign that a person does not have a valid argument to contradict the opponent.

 

Truth is that a child can be raised without being sheltered yet still maintain a certain degree of moral fiber. I am one such example of that. However. since "morality" is not an absolute concept, my morals may not agree with yours. With that in mind, please do not engage in an opponent ill-equipped. It is what leads to needless negativity when debates break down into childish bickering.

It is far simpler than what you said: It was an euphemism. 

 

K1ll Streak explained later perfectly - each parent decides how to educate his / her child. Part of the education is to understand that actions have consequences - big or small, based on how big and small is the child`s transgression of the set of rules, which ONLY the parent sets.

 

Also, ANY negative thing happening to a child, especially under 10, can have unforseen consequences, so yes, he should be carefully monitored. I almost started smoking at 8 because my best friend introduced me to a "cool friend".

 

What a parent decides it is good for a child, some think it is unacceptable and you turning up ok is no guarantee that someone else didn`t end up in jail for stalking or rape. 

 

To spell it for you: TheThirdRace is dead wrong and the wording is not appropiate in my humble opinion, so my answer directly represents the meaning of his words. Why? Because, in my opinion, "he doesn`t get it" - that a child sometimes has to lose some liberties / rights / stimulents / be limited access to / not rewarded / insert any tool used in kid`s education. 

 

I agree to present an apology if TheThirdRace clarifies his intent: was he patronizing just for the sake of it and masking it under harmless advice, or he actually believes in a 9 year old free access to the internet and a cousin with VERY bad habits?

[DrKilledbyDeath]

Name me a single business where people send their children and then they are left unsupervised to mix with other adults freely, and, even though everything they do and say could easily be recorded and reviewed, its not.  For EA to produce and sell a virtual playground with virtually no rules or accountability should be criminal.

 

To the guy refusing to argue with the local idiots, welcome to sanity.  Post your peace and move on with your life, words to live and die by.

Couldn't ask for a better post to illustrate my point. Thanks

[veramis]

Name me a single business where people send their children and then they are left unsupervised to mix with other adults freely, and, even though everything they do and say could easily be recorded and reviewed, its not.  For EA to produce and sell a virtual playground with virtually no rules or accountability should be criminal.

 

To the guy refusing to argue with the local idiots, welcome to sanity.  Post your peace and move on with your life, words to live and die by.

 

No company is legally obligated to prevent abusive verbal behavior of customers, neither would I want failing to prevent such to be considered criminal, because I believe in freedom of speech. It is in the best interest of many companies to deal with such an issue to different extents, but as far as this tacked-on MP is concerned, I don't think it would be a good business decision to spend any additional resources on clamping down on it.

 

It is the parents/guardians' responsibility to decide what their children are exposed to, you can't hold a company responsible for it. If you don't like the verbal abuse you hear, you can mute the immature idiots, and better yet, you can also tell the entire team to kick the offenders at the start of 5/5 so they gain no experience. You can also video record and report the offenders.

[DrKilledbyDeath]

Relative privation aside, I wholly believe that you are completely wrong: A small number of quiet, intelligent people can sway a large number of loud idiots. One easy way is a form of manipulation typically called "rabblerousing", however there are numerous more subtle ways to influence a group. The assumption, unfortunately, that you and a lot of intelligent people maintain is that your voice can't be heard over the screaming masses, which is a untrue miscalculation.

 

While it is true that trying to yell over a screaming mob, you will be drown out. However, as screaming mobs tend to have rather poor intelligence and direction as a collective entity, it's quiet easy to make changes and shape it's path. If you toss a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump right back out. If you put a frog in a pot of lukewarm water and slowly raise the temperature, it will calming boil to death. Tragic, but true.

I would agree with you on this, it's a cop out to just say you can never make a difference so you just give up. That's why I said sometimes I will (racism, sexism, you get the idea), but a lot of the time I won't (like the topic of people having kids). You have to pick your battles. I'd rather save it for stuff that really is important that wear myself out with trivial things. Like I said, have to maintain sanity somehow.

[Jbrizzy84]

This thread is making my eyes bleed ...
Use a headset and turn the volume down.

[AbyssMessiah]

Aside, I might add that "negative" is relative. Morality is not absolute. I did not engage any debate with K1LL STREAK because I truly that each person should be free to do as they please, so long as it does not interfere with the same freedom of another. I in no place to dictate the beliefs of another. I am, however, happy to discuss and debate them with those willing. 

We are in agreement that each person has a different notion of right or wrong, or positive and negative.

[mrs_anomaly]

Mute, block, report and use parental settings. Done. I myself had to mute and block 2 jackasses this week who disgusted me with their racist tirades. It's all one can do because there are so many crazy idiotic douchebags on mic and so little time.

[Dinerenblanc]

There are plenty of unsavory charcters in multiplayer. I've even met a few people who felt the need to trash talk. It's a fricken co-op game, loosen up.

[Teophne]

I'd take a few douchebags over what I have now. During my 1 month of MP i've heard around 5 peeps on mic.

Whenever I get one of those I pop on mine as well. Usually I'm not into monologues that much.

[TheThirdRace]

Oh my! I didn't think my comment would suscitate such a debate...
 

You are missing a lot of other information I didn't disclose here.
...[snip]...

English isn't my first language so things might get lost in translation...

As I said, I meant no disrespect. My comment wasn't really directed at you personally, but more generally. Of course I didn't knew the context, but then again you didn't really wrote it either. Broad statements are a pet peeve of mine so I felt like I had to point out the danger of taking such a point of view.

From what was written, you could interpret it as "my kid is learning how to misbehave so let's remove any interaction he could have with the world so he doesn't turn bad". It doesn't matter if it was what you intended to say or not, all I'm saying is that this point of view can be a dangerous way to think.

I just offered another side to the story, call it patronizing if you want, but my point was meant as food for thought, nothing more.

I think you deserves a lot of recognition for going the extra mile and giving more context. Also for not going batshit crazy on me... It's refreshing to see someone who can articulate an idea, but then again you always post things that makes sense so it's not really a surprise either.

I hope this clarifies a bit more what I wanted to say.
 

By God you`re right! He should buy him porn magazines and stock him on booze and cigarettes! Alternatively teach him how to swear like a sailor - that`ll make him a man!

Being able to swear in many languages would certainly be very useful don't you think? Call it "learning the common tongues"
 

To spell it for you: TheThirdRace is dead wrong and the wording is not appropiate in my humble opinion, so my answer directly represents the meaning of his words. Why? Because, in my opinion, "he doesn`t get it" - that a child sometimes has to lose some liberties / rights / stimulents / be limited access to / not rewarded / insert any tool used in kid`s education.

I agree to present an apology if TheThirdRace clarifies his intent: was he patronizing just for the sake of it and masking it under harmless advice, or he actually believes in a 9 year old free access to the internet and a cousin with VERY bad habits?

Why would you apologize? Your comment on my post wasn't by any mean disrespectful or anything. I just found it sad you could only see in black or white, shades of grey are particularly popular this year... pun intended.

I do not believe in giving kids complete freedom, but I do not believe it's possible or even good for your kids to protect them from everything. You learn by your failures, being told not to do something is usually a powerful motivator for most kids. They need discipline, they need guidance, but they also need the tools to face the problems when they arise. If all you do is prevent the problems, the kid's gonna fall apart or take a very bad decision when one finally shows up.

You can label it patronizing just for the sake of it if you want, just don't take it to the extremes. Life is mostly a grey area...

[AbyssMessiah]

Here`s an example for you: let`s assume that some parent uses "The Children`s Fairy" as an explanation for the "how did I come into this world" question. So, every explanation would revolve around this idyllic picture of a fairy bringing children to mothers. 

 

Suppose some cousin exposes him to internet porn - suddenly your job as parent has become ten times harder, as it would be very hard to explain that all the fairies look like the bimbos he just saw, and that is not even going into the... male fairy

 

This is only ONE case of a kid not knowing about a thing until it`s old enough to understand it.

 

I think when it comes to parenting, there isn`t any grey involved - the kid should NOT come in contact with anything that isn`t proper for his age - and "proper" is defined only by his parents. And a 9 year old should NOT be making prank Skype calls or lie to his parents and certainly NOT be looking up pornography over the internet. And not knowing about something is better than being punished for it.

[Teophne]

Here`s an example for you: let`s assume that some parent uses "The Children`s Fairy" as an explanation for the "how did I come into this world" question. So, every explanation would revolve around this idyllic picture of a fairy bringing children to mothers. 

 

Suppose some cousin exposes him to internet porn - suddenly your job as parent has become ten times harder, as it would be very hard to explain that all the fairies look like the bimbos he just saw, and that is not even going into the... male fairy

 

This is only ONE case of a kid not knowing about a thing until it`s old enough to understand it.

 

I think when it comes to parenting, there isn`t any grey involved - the kid should NOT come in contact with anything that isn`t proper for his age - and "proper" is defined only by his parents. And a 9 year old should NOT be making prank Skype calls or lie to his parents and certainly NOT be looking up pornography over the internet. And not knowing about something is better than being punished for it.

 

A lot of that "proper" defining falls on the parents' judgement as no child is alike. You can't google yourself a proper way to treat kids.

 

While I as a kid heard the Children's Fairy story and whenever I found condoms I was told they were balloons.

My girl is now five years old and we told her that kids are made when parents kiss in the bed and stuff. She's rather wise for her age and can handle that information.

 

Just saying the parent knows their kids and knows what's best for that exact specimen.

 

Also we told her swearing is wrong but since she hears it in daycare and stuff there's no point in denying it existing. Thus if and when she hears swearing she knows it's wrong and only bad people use that kind of language.

When things are explained solidly they can handle that info without it boggling their minds. Again, this depending on the exact specimen.

[AbyssMessiah]

Not arguing against explaining to the child, or that it shouldn`t be explained - to various degrees of maturity or exactness. Not arguing about turning your kid into a monk either, but it is a sound decision, in my opinion, to limit exposure to certain things, at a certain age. Might work sometimes, might not work sometimes, but, to me, it far outweighs the consequences.

[veramis]

http://www.theonion....e-childr,17159/

 

"It's really a matter of who has more experience in dealing with my child," Cincinnati- resident Kevin Dufrense said of his decision to have his 10-year-old son Jake, who suffers from ADHD and dyslexia, school-homed. "These teachers are dealing with upwards of 40 students in their classrooms at a time, so obviously they know a lot more about children than someone like me, who only has one son and doesn't know where he is half the time anyway."

 

"Simply put, it's not the job of parents to raise these kids," Dufrense added.

 

/endthread

[smooth_operator]

http://www.theonion....e-childr,17159/

 

 

/endthread

 

Veramis go on the other thread and tell us how old you are. Don't be an antisocial party pooper.