Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
TheCaptain
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:29 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby TheCaptain » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:43 pm UTC

charolastra wrote:This thread is really reinforcing why I think kids - even the most misbehaved ones - are on the whole 100x better to be around than the average adult.

To dislike all children *just* because they're children and to value them less as human beings just because of the time they've spent on the earth takes a whole lot of mental Olympics. It's almost admirable. Almost.

Izz: I guess being insulted by this^ post, or the accusation of disliking kids as 'ageism' is me overreacting. Thing is, outside of this thread I also get flack for my opinion, most of which is pretty patronizing, and this thread does not exist within a vaccum.
3 out of 4 people who learn that I am childfree tell me I will change my mind. It is insulting, because so far I haven't had a lot of Dog People tell me that I will change my mind and start liking dogs and decide I need one of those, too.
Is that off-topic, then? Or am I allowed to complain, in the disliking of most kids thread, that people like to tell me how wrong I am?

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Menacing Spike » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:48 pm UTC

I'm also offended by this post!

High five!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:50 pm UTC

Cholestera's point is valid; most of the complaints levied against children in this threat aren't specific to children. If you take offense to it, as with the habit of painting all children as identical and therefor not worth being around, perhaps you should also not take offense to the entire thread, when most of the discussion is simply talking about what you do or don't like in children. If you want to supplant your own quelms or social misgivings into the mix, then say so, as you just did, instead of throwing your hands up and shouting that you're being oppressed before the fact.

TheCaptain wrote: in the disliking of most kids thread, that people like to tell me how wrong I am?

In short, feel free to, just don't mistake the thread for people telling you how wrong you are. I can see being told that you'll want kids one day is obnoxious and rude; I don't feel that I've been obnoxious or rude to anyone here for not liking kids. Enuja did the same thing.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby bluebambue » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Cholestera's point is valid; most of the complaints levied against children in this threat aren't specific to children.

I don't think anyone is saying that a trait they dislike in many children is not present in any adults. It is that the probability of finding a trait in children is significantly higher than finding it in adults.

One trait that I like in people I hang out with is the ability to be still, silent, and maintain focus on a task. Both the children I work with and my little cousins are often running around exploring things and interacting with their peers and changing the games they play quickly. I believe this very normal and healthy behavior for kids and that they need to do it to develop. However, it takes a lot of energy for me to be around that, so I don't like being around that.

I have one friend who is great to talk to when he's alone, but I can only take a minute or two of his crazy antics he has when he's in a group. When I get my cousins alone, they still have the high energy craziness.

I think the trait is present in about 5% of adults but 80% of children. When you consider all the traits that I don't like about children, there aren't very many left that I want to spend time with.

I dislike high energy people who can't sit down and have a meaningful conversation with, who have limited understanding of the long term consequences of their actions, don't understand social rules, and who can't take care of themselves. Children almost always fall into these categories.

Edit: And adults only sometimes do.
Last edited by bluebambue on Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:01 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
charolastra
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby charolastra » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

rigwarl wrote:
charolastra wrote:This thread is really reinforcing why I think kids - even the most misbehaved ones - are on the whole 100x better to be around than the average adult.

To dislike all children *just* because they're children and to value them less as human beings just because of the time they've spent on the earth takes a whole lot of mental Olympics. It's almost admirable. Almost.


You dislike all of us *just* because we don't enjoy the same things you do. Question: would you say the same if this thread were about 1 year olds? Because "kids" is pretty gray but the differences with 1 year olds and adults are more clear. And I assure you, I would not enjoy being around a 1 year old under any circumstance.

As for the "value them less" part, I think this is directed at only 1 or 2 posters but I agree that would be silly.


Where did I say I dislike all of you?

I have no problem with people who are childfree. I don't even have a problem with people who don't like kids. Where I have a problem is people like Enuja who outright state they do not value children.

To put that into a context that she can understand, that is like me saying I do not value polyamorous relationships as on equal footing with monogamous relationships because I do not like that form of relationship for myself. That's a silly statement. It's a dangerous statement when you start to place different sets of values on people. We can see what kind of dangers that leads to in India and China with baby girls.

So go on and dislike kids. That's fine and quite honestly a pretty common sentiment. But don't disvalue them because you don't like them or don't understand them.

User avatar
TheCaptain
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:29 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby TheCaptain » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:39 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Cholestera's point is valid; most of the complaints levied against children in this threat aren't specific to children. If you take offense to it, as with the habit of painting all children as identical and therefor not worth being around, perhaps you should also not take offense to the entire thread, when most of the discussion is simply talking about what you do or don't like in children. If you want to supplant your own quelms or social misgivings into the mix, then say so, as you just did, instead of throwing your hands up and shouting that you're being oppressed before the fact.

TheCaptain wrote: in the disliking of most kids thread, that people like to tell me how wrong I am?

In short, feel free to, just don't mistake the thread for people telling you how wrong you are. I can see being told that you'll want kids one day is obnoxious and rude; I don't feel that I've been obnoxious or rude to anyone here for not liking kids. Enuja did the same thing.

to be clear, I'm not mistaking the thread for people telling me how wrong i am. I'm interpreting a few posts as telling me I'm wrong for my opinions, and I apologize if I have given a different impression.
I don't think that most of the complaints leveled against children are complaints that could be leveled against adults. Kids don't make sense. Kids have to be taught to do more things than adults. Kids don't know what adults know, and a lot of people think that this is special, and that's fine for them to think, but I don't agree.
I don't want to be around children, while I'm pretty alright with being around adults who display these same attributes because I have no responsibility to change them.
So far, I have seen no posts that convince me otherwise.
Also- if you weren't being rude to me because I have those particular anti-child opinions, is it just that you feel like being a jerk? Cause I'm pretty sure you're being one. But by all means, keep putting words in my mouth.
Charo ninja: Apparently also putting words in Charolastra's mouth... cause what I'm quoting at the top of this post doesn't quite jive with what zhe has just posted, seems to me.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:49 pm UTC

TheCaptain wrote:I don't think that most of the complaints leveled against children are complaints that could be leveled against adults.

I would disagree here. I've pointed out a handful of places where I think this is the case, and I've agreed with a handful of examples (well, at least Setzers) that I think are children specific issues.
TheCaptain wrote:I don't want to be around children, while I'm pretty alright with being around adults who display these same attributes because I have no responsibility to change them.

A curious distinction; I would say you're not under any imperative to change most children, barring you know, family and such, but unlike adults, you're far more likely to make some headway trying.
TheCaptain wrote:Also- if you weren't being rude to me because I have those particular anti-child opinions, is it just that you feel like being a jerk? Cause I'm pretty sure you're being one. But by all means, keep putting words in my mouth.

I was being sarcastic to you when you claimed, just after I had pointed out that this wasn't the case on the same page, that people in this thread were underfire for not liking children. Because it's tiring to see every sixth post be someone saying "I don't like children because they smell bad and because they're rude. Also, people tell me not liking children is criminally insane", and ignoring the fact that a discussion is going on in which people are pointing out why this is a strange position to hold.

TheCaptain wrote:I don't think that most of the complaints leveled against children are complaints that could be leveled against adults. Kids don't make sense. Kids have to be taught to do more things than adults. Kids don't know what adults know, and a lot of people think that this is special, and that's fine for them to think, but I don't agree.

And as I've stated, like, eight times, in this very thread, I think every trait you just listed is something that at least one of my peers exhibits, and isn't unique to children.


Seriously, people, so far Setzer is the ONLY person who has said "I cannot connect with children because we don't share overlapping interests".
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby bluebambue » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

Izawwlgood, I feel like I addressed your points in my last reply and you have just ignored it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:10 pm UTC

Did you want a point by point, or should I just say yes? You have described why you don't like children, and given reasons that are specific to children, while acknowledging that some children exhibit traits you like and would want to spend time around. It seems we're in agreement, save perhaps the ratio of intolerable : tolerable you listed.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby bluebambue » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:21 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Seriously, people, so far Setzer is the ONLY person who has said "I cannot connect with children because we don't share overlapping interests".
This quote implied that you also didn't agree with me.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

I misspoke by posting that then.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
rigwarl
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby rigwarl » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:12 pm UTC

charolastra wrote:
rigwarl wrote:
charolastra wrote:This thread is really reinforcing why I think kids - even the most misbehaved ones - are on the whole 100x better to be around than the average adult.

To dislike all children *just* because they're children and to value them less as human beings just because of the time they've spent on the earth takes a whole lot of mental Olympics. It's almost admirable. Almost.


You dislike all of us *just* because we don't enjoy the same things you do. Question: would you say the same if this thread were about 1 year olds? Because "kids" is pretty gray but the differences with 1 year olds and adults are more clear. And I assure you, I would not enjoy being around a 1 year old under any circumstance.

As for the "value them less" part, I think this is directed at only 1 or 2 posters but I agree that would be silly.


Where did I say I dislike all of you?

I have no problem with people who are childfree. I don't even have a problem with people who don't like kids. Where I have a problem is people like Enuja who outright state they do not value children.


I misunderstood, but your previous post is judging "the average adult" based on Enuja's extremely uncommon viewpoint (I think the only one to hold it in this thread?)

User avatar
4=5
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:02 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby 4=5 » Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:00 pm UTC

kids are great fun once they can walk.
If they are too young to talk I can just imitate their actions and it starts a game.
They want power and attention so it is generally very easy to understand their actions and provide a socially acceptable way towards their goals.
The only part that gets to me is the demand for repetition far past the point of when I have gotten bored, which demands more of my creativity to keep it interesting.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:06 am UTC

So bluebambue is ableist, eh? Can't say I'm surprised
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:02 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:Liking kids isn't off-topic, but it sure is full of 'people who don't like kids are borked' language.

Yes, it has been said a few times now that people who are stating they like kids are actually stating 'don't like kids? You're a twat!' but curiously, the only people who seem to be actually making that claim are the people who don't like kids.

Then you haven't been reading. Cheesewhiz Jenkins and charolastra have been actively hostile.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
charolastra
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby charolastra » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:05 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:Liking kids isn't off-topic, but it sure is full of 'people who don't like kids are borked' language.

Yes, it has been said a few times now that people who are stating they like kids are actually stating 'don't like kids? You're a twat!' but curiously, the only people who seem to be actually making that claim are the people who don't like kids.

Then you haven't been reading. Cheesewhiz Jenkins and charolastra have been actively hostile.


I don't know what the appropriate response is to a person (and people who support this person) who states they support infanticide and do not value children as human beings. Actively hostile to a person that is actively hostile in nature? I believe it's fairly matched.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:06 am UTC

I disagree. Reading over CJ's and Chola's posts, I think they're just calling people out on what they seem to be disliking. Most of CJ's 'with more anger!' sarcasm seems to be directed at Enuja (and some others) complaining that she's/they're being oppressed by baby lovers, and Chola too.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:13 am UTC

...DAMMIT, I missed that there was another page in the thread.

If their posts were aimed at Enuja, then that was not made clear, because I read most of it as direct attacks on people who have expressed dislike for kids and the reasons why.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
charolastra
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby charolastra » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:23 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:...DAMMIT, I missed that there was another page in the thread.

If their posts were aimed at Enuja, then that was not made clear, because I read most of it as direct attacks on people who have expressed dislike for kids and the reasons why.


I'm chemo-braining and seem to be unable to quote properly today. My posts were aimed at Enuja and anyone else who might hold similar views.

Just because I like and understand kids doesn't mean that I think everyone should (and I must admit one of the funniest things I have seen was watching my brother's mere presence in my mom's 3 year old preschool classroom reduce all the girls to tears - they sensed his panic and reacted to it). However, I expect people to respect children as equally valuable humans, just equally valuable humans that someone else needs to procreate and deal with for 18 years.

I also don't think that not liking children or wanting to be childfree is all that taboo among our generation - and certainly not among people most of us could call peers. It's a bitch dating where I live as someone who would consider any partner as a potential future father since the vast majority of people in my social sphere have absolutely no interest in children. That's totally fine, if not annoying to me from a dating perspective. :P It's certainly not the "woe is me, I'm so put down upon" situation that I seem to be reading in this thread.

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby bluebambue » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:44 am UTC

I think that I have always assumed that people were going to look oddly at me for not liking/wanting kids because I hear stories from people in older generations that they had problems. But so far I have not had any issues. It is, I think, largely generation/location based.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:48 am UTC

As far as I know, Enuja is the only one who has directly stated devaluing children as sentient beings. The rest of us have been discussing our dislike in much the same fashion as one would discuss dislike for Republicans or fashion designers.

Community reaction to a stated dislike of children certainly depends on location and generation. Where you have groups of peers who have no interest in children, I have groups of people (in a state government department, for example) who joke that I'm a robot, eccentric, or pitiable because I don't want to bear any. Someone in this thread has accused me of immaturity for it. They might not mean harm, but it is belittling.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Nath » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:54 am UTC

My rambling thoughts on the subject:

I totally see where Enuja is coming from in viewing infants as less valuable. Viewed on their own merits, human infants are inferior to adult chickens. But the thing is, value is not a meritocracy. We value friends and family more than we value strangers, even if the strangers are smarter or more ethical or more talented. Similarly, even though children are generally inconvenient and not very useful, we value them as much as or more than we value adults. This is why most people find infanticide as horrifying as any other kind of murder, and considerably more horrifying than the act of slaughtering a chicken for dinner.

I don't think it makes sense to say that we should care about people in proportion to their merits. We care about what we care about; there's no logical basis to say that our values should be otherwise. This works the other way, too: if someone *cough* thinks infants are less valuable, I don't think it makes them irrational and/or evil. I'd oppose them if they tried to legalize infanticide, but apart from that, I don't really have a problem with them.

To answer the original question, I like kids just fine for about half an hour, and then I want to be left alone. But I'm the same way with adults. I do find kids harder to be around, because the mere act of being in the vicinity of a kid means you are kind of obligated to look out for them. If an adult I don't care about does something stupid, I let them deal with the consequences. If an adult does something that infringes on my rights, I can stand up for myself with the appropriate level of forcefulness (sometimes including actual physical force). But kids are in a weird position of not having some of the rights of adults (e.g. the right to make up their own damn minds about stuff), but having some additional protections instead. Basically, you can't treat them as peers, and give them the same rights and responsibilities you would a peer.

Also, sometimes they puke on me.

Beardhammer
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:40 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Beardhammer » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:55 am UTC

Josephine wrote:If I can treat them like an adult, then everything's fine. If I can't, then
Zarq wrote:My opinion on kids varies from indifferent to "Somebody get that fucking kid out of here"


This is pretty much how I feel. I always feel mildly uncomfortable around kids, because I don't know how to treat them. I want to treat them like adults, but since not every kid develops at the same rate as others (referring specifically to mental/emotional development), it's not quite like being able to go "okay he's 10 I can treat him like a slightly slow adult."

I like kids otherwise, though. I like seeing them learn and explore and be curious about things, and I really like indulging them in those things. I also like rewarding that behavior in cats, dogs, and other animals, though, so I dunno. Aside from the "uncomfortable around kids" thing, I don't have any problems with them.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby AvatarIII » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:31 pm UTC

i'm not a massive fan of children, i tolerate them, babies and vfery young children i find easier to tolerate because i just treat them in the same way i would a pet or animal, depending on age i guess i'll treak a kid in the same way i'd treat a rabbit (for babies) or perhaps a dog (for toddlers)

i do want kids eventually but i have it in my head that my kids will be superior to any other kids due to the fact i'm a fine genetic specimin, and most of my annoyances with other peoples kids is the way they are raised, and the fact i don't see them often enough to get used to being around them, both things that will be different when i have kids.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:42 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:...DAMMIT, I missed that there was another page in the thread.

If their posts were aimed at Enuja, then that was not made clear, because I read most of it as direct attacks on people who have expressed dislike for kids and the reasons why.


I'm not sure how to make it more clear that my posts are aimed at Enuja; I quoted her frequently and made several point by point rebuttals. I'm not hostile to anyone in this thread; I merely disagree with them (although I'll admit that the persecution complex thing - which I seem to reinforce simply by posting - is kind of annoying, and izawwlgood is correct - my sarcasm is directed towards that).

I'm not saying anyone is a bad person, should have children, should be around children, should like being around children. I agree with what others have said - if you don't like kids, please don't be around them! That way everybody's happy. Or, at least, less unhappy, perhaps.

However, I do object to what is, to me, appalling stereotyping and devaluation, and what I very much see as ablelist (THAT'S the word I was searching for! Dumb brain), ageist, frankly prejudiced views. If saying that I think a view is prejudiced is being "hostile" and oppressing then color me communist Russia, but I really don't see how "I disagree, and further I think that is a prejudiced view, if you think about it" can be stretched to "being actively hostile to people who dislike kids." (For one thing, I wasn't aware that short of hacking her account, I COULD be "actively" hostile to someone on The Internets.)
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:00 pm UTC

Actively hostile as in directly attacking someone's post. Passively hostile would be going elsewhere to talk about it behind her back, or making snide comments without directly addressing her, or something like that.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:07 pm UTC

Okay, but again - I am not "attacking" anyone anymore than I am being attacked. I really feel people are acting as if this thread is a safespace. :\
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby podbaydoor » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:21 pm UTC

I'm not. I was merely objecting to Izaawlgood's contention that nobody was doing any attacking.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby broken_escalator » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

I am attacking; I roll a critical! Make your saving throw.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby setzer777 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:33 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:However, I do object to what is, to me, appalling stereotyping and devaluation, and what I very much see as ablelist (THAT'S the word I was searching for! Dumb brain), ageist, frankly prejudiced views. If saying that I think a view is prejudiced is being "hostile" and oppressing then color me communist Russia, but I really don't see how "I disagree, and further I think that is a prejudiced view, if you think about it" can be stretched to "being actively hostile to people who dislike kids." (For one thing, I wasn't aware that short of hacking her account, I COULD be "actively" hostile to someone on The Internets.)


Are you primarily referring to Enuja's devaluing of children here? I think that gets tricky, since it seems to be based on a fundamentally different answer to the question of what makes human life valuable. I take it that you believe that being human at all is what imbues someone with moral worth, while she disagrees on that. In my view there is no objectively correct answer to the question of what we "should" value, though obviously some values are going to alienate a lot of people. I'm not sure "prejudiced" is a useful label when someone is trying to define the boundaries of human worth - I think it's (imperfectly) analogous to calling someone prejudiced because of their views about what level of brain damage warrants "pulling the plug".

Edit: I do wonder whether I would feel differently about children if I felt like I could totally be myself around them. I'm sure it would be a weird thing to adjust to, but if I could still talk about all the things I like talking about (using the language I like to use), hold them to the same standards I hold adults, and not have to worry about social censure or their "innocence", I might feel very differently about it. So maybe a lot of my issue isn't anything inherent about children, but rather the box society builds around them.

I think a big part of this box is the idea that the parents have the right to dictate what their children learn or are exposed to (in terms of sex, language, religion, philosophical/political ideas), and that this right extends so far that people in public need to censor themselves for the sake of not exposing children to anything their parents don't want them to hear.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:15 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Are you primarily referring to Enuja's devaluing of children here? I think that gets tricky, since it seems to be based on a fundamentally different answer to the question of what makes human life valuable. . . . I'm not sure "prejudiced" is a useful label when someone is trying to define the boundaries of human worth - I think it's (imperfectly) analogous to calling someone prejudiced because of their views about what level of brain damage warrants "pulling the plug".


I can answer the question of what makes human life valuable with "not being black" but that doesn't make it not-prejudice. The very concept of devaluing a whole group of people based on some fundamental, shared characteristic (or set of characteristics) is a good definition of prejudice. The justification - whether moral, ethical, religious, medical, "logical", or anything else - is irrelevant.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Enuja » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:41 pm UTC

existential_elevator wrote:
Enuja wrote: I morally support infanticide, because infants are amazing learning machines and should have the human right of getting a good opportunity to have a good life, but should not have a right to life.
I read this sentence three times because I couldn't entirely believe what I was reading. I too do not think there is any inherent value in human life, and that as a species we are incredibly self-centred. However... No. In a situation where a child is born into either abject poverty or a world too cruel for it, the solution in my opinion is that the parents of said child should have had access to proper and safe family planning or abortion. Perhaps there are cases when a child is born with such terrible defects that they couldn't survive such a view would be permissible. But otherwise, without some severe qualification, I find this sentiment morally abhorrent, and I apologise.
My views on the morality of infanticide usually only come up in when I think of my moral reaction to the many historic human societies which have practiced infanticide, and in reply to counter-arguments in abortion discussions. I absolutely agree that family planning and abortion are much, much better (less risk, less resources used, further from any moral problems), but safe abortion and highly effective contraception are very recent inventions, and some people have been forced to deliver and then watch non-viable babies die over a period of hours, instead of having an abortion. In these historic and present cases, I am in favor of infanticide.


Izawwlgood wrote:
Enuja wrote:If you tell a group of people that you'd save yourself, or any adult (unless saving the adult makes it possible to save more people because the adult can save others) before a child, they will very likely look down on you.

Perhaps this has more to do with societies expectations of collectivism over individualism, chivalry over self-preservation? If I told someone that I wouldn't take a bullet for some random woman, they'd call me a coward .
Enuja wrote:If you do not respect the attempts of parents and society as a whole to preserve the innocence of children, even when that preservation prevents you from doing things that are important to you, you will be socially ostracized.

I think you're painting yourself to be a victim here in a manner that belies your personal experiences with our relationship to children. I've never experienced parents or grandparents pressuring me to reproduce, so can't relate at all to this social ostracization you're attesting to. If anything, based on communications with my peers, I think there's a pretty widespread anti-children trend that's gaining in popularity, especially in urban areas.

I also think your stance about removing humans from the cosmos probably influences your evident curmudgeonry as it pertains to interacting with kids.
I have the strong impression that the "societal expectations of collectivism over individualism" (as weak as they are in general) are much stronger about kids than about adults. I also think that gender expectations are very important: men are expected to value women and children over themselves, women are expected to value children over themselves (and value men's skills over their own, while they value their own lives over men's lives).

Did you mean "reflects" instead of "belies" my person experiences? I've also not experienced parents pressuring me to reproduce, but when I talk about my choice to not have children amongst, say, co-workers or volunteers, I get disappointment. When I say I'm "socially ostracized," I don't mean that I get the same extent of social ostracization that I would get, from, saying, going naked, but I do think not wanting children makes me seem like a less acceptable person than if I were to say that I want children.

And, yes, I agree that my curmudgeonry (what a wonderful world) is related to my basic values, and that's why I mentioned these values in this thread.

KestrelLowing wrote:Why cancer things for kids always get more donations is because our society views them as helpless and typically we want to help the helpless. Adding to that, you get this thought of "what if that child was the next Einstein" or similar thoughts. Children have so much potential and I'm a firm believer that the majority of children would actually be able to become something great if given the right resources. However, once people live in the world for a while, that potential decreases because of all the things we get bogged down by. So I think it may be a little bit of longing for better things for our culture and that's why we try to save children.
I agree that potential versus experience is the central issue here, and that our society as a whole values potential. Personally, I value experience, even negative experiences that restrict future potential, far more than I value potential. Just as every infant has the potential to "cure cancer," they all also have the potential to be the next mass killer. I don't value potential for its own sake.

PictureSarah wrote:I'd also like to point out that, although I work with an agency that very specifically only serves families with children under 5, I don't do it because I like the kids (although I do), I do it because I care about the wellbeing of families, and women in particular. I serve poor, often very dysfunctional families, who are very poor and often don't have access to health/mental healthcare, contraceptives, haven't had much education, and aren't aware of safest or best practices when it comes to their children. I want to give these families a leg up, so that their children will, hopefully, eventually become more successful, productive, non-miserable adults. So really, I feel like you can dislike kids, and that's fine, but you can't *not care* about kids without not caring about people.
What you do is absolutely a great way to make humans better and happier. Personally, I'm much more interested in the part of your job that reduces the number of people (contraceptives), and I focus my volunteer work on ecology and biological diversity, but I think that your job absolutely makes the world a better place.

Izawwlgood wrote:... just don't mistake the thread for people telling you how wrong you are. I can see being told that you'll want kids one day is obnoxious and rude; I don't feel that I've been obnoxious or rude to anyone here for not liking kids. Enuja did the same thing.
I read very carefully through all of my previous posts, and I no-where did I call anyone in this thread obnoxious or rude. I did argue that telling people how best to raise and treat children, in this thread, was part of the overwhelming pro-child bias of our society, but I never claimed that anyone was being rude to me. (Of course, a few people have been somewhat rude about my valuing children less than adults, but that didn't come until after my last post, and I'm not even slightly surprised or upset by this.)

charolastra wrote:I have no problem with people who are childfree. I don't even have a problem with people who don't like kids. Where I have a problem is people like Enuja who outright state they do not value children.

To put that into a context that she can understand, that is like me saying I do not value polyamorous relationships as on equal footing with monogamous relationships because I do not like that form of relationship for myself. That's a silly statement. It's a dangerous statement when you start to place different sets of values on people. We can see what kind of dangers that leads to in India and China with baby girls.

So go on and dislike kids. That's fine and quite honestly a pretty common sentiment. But don't disvalue them because you don't like them or don't understand them.
I do not have any problem with anyone saying that they do not value polyamorous relationships on an equal footing with monogamous relationships. I'll disagree with them, and argue with them, but I expect that people with different moral values from me will value things differently. I agree that valuing men more than valuing women is dangerous, but I am not all concerned, in this society we have right now, with culture wide consequences from people not valuing children, in large part because so many people value children so much.

Okay, now that I'm done replying to comments to or about me, that seemed to merit reply (I skipped some things that I both agreed and disagreed with, because I think I've already answered the questions or the posts are statements of opinion that I read, appreciate, and can't think of a useful reply to), on to further discussion.




I am extremely surprised that (as far as I can tell, please point me to a post that says this if I've missed it), people in this thread are not championing the idea that children should have more intrinsic value than adults. When I go on Facebook, many of the people I went to high school with post almost exclusively about their children, and I strongly suspect that they value children more than they value adults, and in more than just in "I'm not selfish, so I value others above myself" and "I love these people" sorts of ways. When I talk with all but a very small number of people who became my friends due to rare shared values, I perceive almost all of the people around me as valuing children more than adults. This value system would also be open to the major moral complaint in this thread about my views, namely that all people, children and adults, men and women, able and disabled, should be valued exactly the same.

Before posting in this thread, I did honestly believe that valuing children and adults equally was considered a socially unacceptable moral among the vast majority (to make up numbers, say, 85%) of adults in America. Maybe I should do some research to see what people actually think. Because of this perceived massive majority, valuing children less seemed like a welcome balancing moral perspective, and arguments about valuing everyone equally seemed quite irrelevant, in the face of my perception of common morals.

I don't share the moral, but I have absolutely no problem with valuing children and adults equally. I think a very good society could come out of this value system, and it's not something that feels oppressive or obnoxious to me. I don't have any problem with infanticide being considered to be murder by my society as a whole and, in fact, it's a very convenient bright line that I have no objections to in this current society (where abortion and contraception are legal and available).

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby setzer777 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:49 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
Are you primarily referring to Enuja's devaluing of children here? I think that gets tricky, since it seems to be based on a fundamentally different answer to the question of what makes human life valuable. . . . I'm not sure "prejudiced" is a useful label when someone is trying to define the boundaries of human worth - I think it's (imperfectly) analogous to calling someone prejudiced because of their views about what level of brain damage warrants "pulling the plug".


I can answer the question of what makes human life valuable with "not being black" but that doesn't make it not-prejudice. The very concept of devaluing a whole group of people based on some fundamental, shared characteristic (or set of characteristics) is a good definition of prejudice. The justification - whether moral, ethical, religious, medical, "logical", or anything else - is irrelevant.


Hm...but ultimately you're drawing the line somewhere. Why should human (or mammalian, or wherever you draw the line) DNA be the basis for moral value? It seems like valuing the presence of a certain degree of cognitive thought more than the species of the individual is a valid moral stance (albeit one that doesn't match up with my own emotional reaction to things). I don't share Enuja's views, but I can see the argument she's making. To take an extreme example: if someone has lost their entire brain except the absolute minimum required to keep their organs functioning, I wouldn't assign the same value to them as I would to those with functional brains, because the presence of conscious thought is a fundamental basis of value for me.

I don't hold the following view (though possibly my objections are emotional rather than rational), but I can understand those who value certain fully grown animals (let's say chimps) more than newborn babies. If minds are the only thing about humans someone values, it makes sense to give precedence to cognitive activity over DNA.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
existential_elevator
The awesomest one!
Posts: 3328
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:31 am UTC
Location: The Ocean of Regret
Contact:

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby existential_elevator » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:55 pm UTC

Enuja wrote:
existential_elevator wrote:
Enuja wrote: I morally support infanticide, because infants are amazing learning machines and should have the human right of getting a good opportunity to have a good life, but should not have a right to life.
I read this sentence three times because I couldn't entirely believe what I was reading. I too do not think there is any inherent value in human life, and that as a species we are incredibly self-centred. However... No. In a situation where a child is born into either abject poverty or a world too cruel for it, the solution in my opinion is that the parents of said child should have had access to proper and safe family planning or abortion. Perhaps there are cases when a child is born with such terrible defects that they couldn't survive such a view would be permissible. But otherwise, without some severe qualification, I find this sentiment morally abhorrent, and I apologise.
My views on the morality of infanticide usually only come up in when I think of my moral reaction to the many historic human societies which have practiced infanticide, and in reply to counter-arguments in abortion discussions. I absolutely agree that family planning and abortion are much, much better (less risk, less resources used, further from any moral problems), but safe abortion and highly effective contraception are very recent inventions, and some people have been forced to deliver and then watch non-viable babies die over a period of hours, instead of having an abortion. In these historic and present cases, I am in favor of infanticide.
You see, Enuja, when you say "infanticide", the first image of what you mean is generally the situation in Asia whereby it is far too common to find that families kill their female children either for vanity or for the fact that it is simply more costly to raise a female child. You really need to be quite explicit that this is not the sort of thing you "morally support". What you are talking about is best referred to as child euthanasia, and I'd recommend you refer to it as such in the future. If you're not clear about that, it's easy for us to assume, without context, that you simply hold a callous disregard for the lives of children, and would be happy to treat them like unwanted kittens ripe for drowning.
Enuja wrote: When I go on Facebook, many of the people I went to high school with post almost exclusively about their children, and I strongly suspect that they value children more than they value adults, and in more than just in "I'm not selfish, so I value others above myself" and "I love these people" sorts of ways
Aha! I see the fallacy you're making here. I think you fail to see that parents value their children more than adults. This is quite a different thing. I highly doubt that too many of your friends would value any given child over any given adult. I would like to think it would just be obvious, however, that they would value their own gene-spawn above any given adult though (barring perhaps spouses and their own parents). There's also the general observation that, particularly if you have a lot of friends with very young children, you're going to find that suddenly that child makes up the majority of their everyday interactions. It's simply likely that they're going to talk more about their child in those cases, and this doesn't necessarily mean that they value all children above all adults because of this. I (anecdotally, of course) know a few parents who despise kids in general, yet still manage to love and value their own.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:03 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
Are you primarily referring to Enuja's devaluing of children here? I think that gets tricky, since it seems to be based on a fundamentally different answer to the question of what makes human life valuable. . . . I'm not sure "prejudiced" is a useful label when someone is trying to define the boundaries of human worth - I think it's (imperfectly) analogous to calling someone prejudiced because of their views about what level of brain damage warrants "pulling the plug".


I can answer the question of what makes human life valuable with "not being black" but that doesn't make it not-prejudice. The very concept of devaluing a whole group of people based on some fundamental, shared characteristic (or set of characteristics) is a good definition of prejudice. The justification - whether moral, ethical, religious, medical, "logical", or anything else - is irrelevant.


Hm...but ultimately you're drawing the line somewhere. Why should human (or mammalian, or wherever you draw the line) DNA be the basis for moral value? It seems like valuing the presence of a certain degree of cognitive thought more than the species of the individual is a valid moral stance (albeit one that doesn't match up with my own emotional reaction to things). I don't share Enuja's views, but I can see the argument she's making. To take an extreme example: if someone has lost their entire brain except the absolute minimum required to keep their organs functioning, I wouldn't assign the same value to them as I would to those with functional brains, because the presence of conscious thought is a fundamental basis of value for me.

I don't hold the following view (though possibly my objections are emotional rather than rational), but I can understand those who value certain fully grown animals (let's say chimps) more than newborn babies. If minds are the only thing about humans someone values, it makes sense to give precedence to cognitive activity over DNA.


The fact that you can assign value to any old arbitrary thing has little to do with the fact that a "moral" justification does not suddenly turn prejudice - valuing some people more than others - into an enlightened perspective. When you take a group of people, and draw an arbitrary line in the sand that says "these people are morally worth less than the [X] people because of [Y] reason" that, quite simply, is prejudice (and it doesn't work to argue that that somehow implies that now insects and amoebas alike must now be equal to humans).
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby setzer777 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
Spoiler:
setzer777 wrote:
Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
Are you primarily referring to Enuja's devaluing of children here? I think that gets tricky, since it seems to be based on a fundamentally different answer to the question of what makes human life valuable. . . . I'm not sure "prejudiced" is a useful label when someone is trying to define the boundaries of human worth - I think it's (imperfectly) analogous to calling someone prejudiced because of their views about what level of brain damage warrants "pulling the plug".


I can answer the question of what makes human life valuable with "not being black" but that doesn't make it not-prejudice. The very concept of devaluing a whole group of people based on some fundamental, shared characteristic (or set of characteristics) is a good definition of prejudice. The justification - whether moral, ethical, religious, medical, "logical", or anything else - is irrelevant.


Hm...but ultimately you're drawing the line somewhere. Why should human (or mammalian, or wherever you draw the line) DNA be the basis for moral value? It seems like valuing the presence of a certain degree of cognitive thought more than the species of the individual is a valid moral stance (albeit one that doesn't match up with my own emotional reaction to things). I don't share Enuja's views, but I can see the argument she's making. To take an extreme example: if someone has lost their entire brain except the absolute minimum required to keep their organs functioning, I wouldn't assign the same value to them as I would to those with functional brains, because the presence of conscious thought is a fundamental basis of value for me.

I don't hold the following view (though possibly my objections are emotional rather than rational), but I can understand those who value certain fully grown animals (let's say chimps) more than newborn babies. If minds are the only thing about humans someone values, it makes sense to give precedence to cognitive activity over DNA.


The fact that you can assign value to any old arbitrary thing has little to do with the fact that a "moral" justification does not suddenly turn prejudice - valuing some people more than others - into an enlightened perspective. When you take a group of people, and draw an arbitrary line in the sand that says "these people are morally worth less than the [X] people because of [Y] reason" that, quite simply, is prejudice (and it doesn't work to argue that that somehow implies that now insects and amoebas alike must now be equal to humans).


I agree. But I do think it's possible to draw comparatively non-arbitrary lines, just as we do with species (ex: I value reptiles more than amoebas). If you have a consistent moral system built up from a small number of basic premises (ex. "minds have moral worth"), that is different than having a hodgepodge collection of prejudices.

Edit: Also, putting "moral" in scare quotes doesn't invalidate someone's justification.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
I agree. But I do think it's possible to draw comparatively non-arbitrary lines, just as we do with species (ex: I value reptiles more than amoebas). If you have a consistent moral system built up from a small number of basic premises (ex. "minds have moral worth"), that is different than having a hodgepodge collection of prejudices.

Edit: Also, putting "moral" in scare quotes doesn't invalidate someone's justification.


They're not scare quotes. >rolls eyes< Feel free to take 'em out. It makes no difference whether I happen to think the morality in question is sincere or justified; devaluing people on moral grounds still does not negate the fact that doing so is prejudice. The justification is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is prejudiced. Deciding some group of people is more (or less) morally/inherently valuable than another is prejudiced all day long no matter what the justification is.

Also, I am confused as to what you are talking about now. Do you disagree with something I have stated?
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby setzer777 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:44 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
I agree. But I do think it's possible to draw comparatively non-arbitrary lines, just as we do with species (ex: I value reptiles more than amoebas). If you have a consistent moral system built up from a small number of basic premises (ex. "minds have moral worth"), that is different than having a hodgepodge collection of prejudices.

Edit: Also, putting "moral" in scare quotes doesn't invalidate someone's justification.


They're not scare quotes. >rolls eyes< Feel free to take 'em out. It makes no difference whether I happen to think the morality in question is sincere or justified; devaluing people on moral grounds still does not negate the fact that doing so is prejudice. The justification is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is prejudiced. Deciding some group of people is more (or less) morally/inherently valuable than another is prejudiced all day long no matter what the justification is.

Also, I am confused as to what you are talking about now. Do you disagree with something I have stated?


If you are using the word "prejudice" in a value-neutral way, then I don't disagree with your statement. If you are using the common definition of the word (which implies injustice, unreasonableness, moral incorrectness), then I disagree with the suggestion that all distinctions are equally prejudiced. I do think that some of those distinctions are more valid, legitimate, and useful than others.

Edit: Let me illustrate with an example I totally disagree with: the idea that when it comes to whose life is worth saving, a 5 year old is more valuable than a 30 year old, because they probably have more life left to live, more unused potential, more "innocence" (yeah, intentional scare quotes there), etc. I completely disagree with that moral belief, but I think that it is more valid than prejudice based on negative stereotypes about a group, because it is (at least attempting to be) based on the inherent nature of having different amounts of life left to live.

Edit 2: Blah, I've been going pretty far into the abstract here. To try to bring myself more on-topic: upon reflection, I agree with you that individuals and businesses should not discriminate against children. I do think that they should be allowed to hold them to the same standard as adults, for example expelling them if they cause too much noise or disruption.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
apricity
almost grown-up but not quite
Posts: 3983
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:28 am UTC
Location: Probably North Dakota or something

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby apricity » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

Enuja wrote:I am extremely surprised that (as far as I can tell, please point me to a post that says this if I've missed it), people in this thread are not championing the idea that children should have more intrinsic value than adults. When I go on Facebook, many of the people I went to high school with post almost exclusively about their children, and I strongly suspect that they value children more than they value adults, and in more than just in "I'm not selfish, so I value others above myself" and "I love these people" sorts of ways. When I talk with all but a very small number of people who became my friends due to rare shared values, I perceive almost all of the people around me as valuing children more than adults. This value system would also be open to the major moral complaint in this thread about my views, namely that all people, children and adults, men and women, able and disabled, should be valued exactly the same.

I value unfamiliar kids and adults equally, in terms of treating them with the same amount of respect and desiring the same amount of happiness for everyone. But yeah, people can earn more value in my mind quite easily, or lose value if their behavior merits a loss. As a general whole though, I think children and adults deserve all the same good things. The real difference is that in our society, much does revolve around children because they are learning and growing so quickly, and because they do thoroughly ingrain themselves into the lives of the adults who care for them. You are in a minority, Enuja, as someone who doesn't want kids, but that doesn't mean anybody should look down on you for it or try to convince you otherwise. However, it does mean that you should understand just how many people's lives revolve around kids-- parents, grandparents, caretakers, youth service providers. Also realize that younger kids need constant supervision, that there are hours of each day plus weekends and summer when they are not in school or daycare, and how incredibly boring that can become for adults who are not stimulated by the kind of repetitive activities that are new and exciting to young kids. Other things that are stimulating to adults can be over- or under-stimulating to kids, based on developing perceptive, cognitive, and social skills. Then it starts to become clear why there is so much kid-centric stuff in our society. Sure, it's a minor annoyance for you to endure things that are tailored toward kids... but without that stuff, it becomes a huge burden on the adult caretakers.

This is not to say that it's not ridiculous to try and shield kids from the horrors of war and violence and sex and bad language. It is. But then, you don't know whose kid that is. As a nanny, I did my best to shield the kid I cared for from everything because it wasn't up to me to decide whether it was okay to introduce those to him, and I could have gotten in huge trouble with the family if he started repeating bad language or anything like that. If it is a parent or guardian, they might be trying to shield the kid because of traumas in the family's history, or because the kid tends toward violence and they are trying to keep him from copying it, or because the kid lacks developmentally appropriate social skills and will repeat inappropriate words and behaviors, or because of religion, or any number of other things. None of this is your concern, but it is still very helpful to people like me when others keep all of this in mind.

Edit: setzer777, that post you just wrote was interesting, but it also shows that you lack understanding of child development. Many of the behaviors you seem to be unhappy with are learned. Some kids inherently know how to sit quietly and listen, but others have to have it constantly reinforced until they get it. Still others are taught at home that being loud is the way to get attention, and that hurting others is a way of punishing them for something they didn't like, which has to be unlearned. Adults are better at this because they have had more time for people to figure out how to get through to them and explain the socially acceptable way of behaving. So yes, you can hold them to the same standards, but they are less likely to be able to live up to them so it is good to have some concessions.
LE4d wrote:have you considered becoming an electron

it takes just a little practice to learn to be
(she/her/hers)

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: Does anyone else dislike most kids?

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:21 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
I agree. But I do think it's possible to draw comparatively non-arbitrary lines, just as we do with species (ex: I value reptiles more than amoebas). If you have a consistent moral system built up from a small number of basic premises (ex. "minds have moral worth"), that is different than having a hodgepodge collection of prejudices.

Edit: Also, putting "moral" in scare quotes doesn't invalidate someone's justification.


They're not scare quotes. >rolls eyes< Feel free to take 'em out. It makes no difference whether I happen to think the morality in question is sincere or justified; devaluing people on moral grounds still does not negate the fact that doing so is prejudice. The justification is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is prejudiced. Deciding some group of people is more (or less) morally/inherently valuable than another is prejudiced all day long no matter what the justification is.

Also, I am confused as to what you are talking about now. Do you disagree with something I have stated?


If you are using the word "prejudice" in a value-neutral way, then I don't disagree with your statement. If you are using the common definition of the word (which implies injustice, unreasonableness, moral incorrectness), then I disagree with the suggestion that all distinctions are equally prejudiced. I do think that some of those distinctions are more valid, legitimate, and useful than others.

Edit: Let me illustrate with an example I totally disagree with: the idea that when it comes to whose life is worth saving, a 5 year old is more valuable than a 30 year old, because they probably have more life left to live, more unused potential, more "innocence" (yeah, intentional scare quotes there), etc. I completely disagree with that moral belief, but I think that it is more valid than prejudice based on negative stereotypes about a group, because it is (at least attempting to be) based on the inherent nature of having different amounts of life left to live.

Edit 2: Blah, I've been going pretty far into the abstract here. To try to bring myself more on-topic: upon reflection, I agree with you that individuals and businesses should not discriminate against children. I do think that they should be allowed to hold them to the same standard as adults, for example expelling them if they cause too much noise or disruption.


-_- Seriously, either "scare quotes" (ahahahaha, see what I did there? :D) should be OK or not...

I'm not saying that all distinctions are equally prejudiced; I have no problem with ostracizing rapists, for example. However, (as a rule - there's probably some edge case(s) you could think up) I do think it's drawing distinctions based on things that *aren't wrong or hurtful* that is harmful and wrong. People of any given age didn't do anything wrong just because they are that age - it's just something they are and cannot change, and further harms absolutely nobody and isn't wrong of itself in any ethical or moral framework I can imagine (well, unless you belong to like...a suicide cult or believe that all human life is bad and wrong and should be culled or something similar). ("Arbitrary" probably isn't quite the right word to describe this type of distinction, although I feel that in this as in many cases it is accurate.)
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests