Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:31 pm
Yeah, you would be in favor of more sex on TV you little pervert!Prebe wrote:Good post Syl. I wholeheartedly agree.
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Entertainment out of control?
Page 4 of 5
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:39 pm
U bet HLT!
A local channel in Copenhagen overdid it two weeks ago, when they didn't stop their hard-core transmission at 5 am. It spilled over in the childrens morning cartoon time!
Needles to say that parents where less than happy.
A local channel in Copenhagen overdid it two weeks ago, when they didn't stop their hard-core transmission at 5 am. It spilled over in the childrens morning cartoon time!
Needles to say that parents where less than happy.
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 11:02 pm
excellent points.Syl wrote:I don't mind the sex on TV so much, would mind a lot less if it wasn't so... sensationalized. I have a bigger problem with the violence. I was watching TV one weekend morning (flipping through channels while watching cartoons with the boy) and a commercial for CSI came on. During the commercial, a woman is standing in a window and jumps. Cut to the investigators looking down at the body on the concrete, blood around it and everthing. I mean, c'mon. I'd rather have my kid watching women in bikinis than people fairly graphically committing suicide.
It's like the people that got all upset when they found out there was a mod for GTA: San Andreas that opened sexually oriented material in the game. Running over pedestrians, killing cops, carjacking, and so forth are fine, , but naked people! That's just wrong. Pffff. (and considering you had to go on the internet to even get the mod...).
Or to put it like this: would you rather your kid be a porn star or a convicted murderer?
And I have the game GTASA, and the actual content is in the DVD in the program code itself, on the disk as shipped, and you have to get a file to merely unlock it! My original copy is actually worth a little money, or was during the "uproar", heh. That was Hillary's complaint btw, that it contained content that wasn't "declared" at the time it was rated, and therefore violated the ratings laws, IIRC. (I agree with her on that point, if it's "in the game", say so, so we can avoid "soiling small minds" by hiding porn in games that aren't rated for sexual content)
You should have seen my face when I went to pick up my "girlfriend", went to "give her a kiss", and she started "going south" on me right in the driveway!
Then you had to take her out, make her happy, then when you dropped her off at home she would invite you in "for coffee", where you then had to "perform" using the controller. I loved every minute of it, but it got boring fairly quickly, heh. Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:33 am
Well, of course children need to be taught which actions are acceptable and which are not. I'm just not sure that shame has anything to do with it.Cail wrote:Ohhh Pliss, we really disagree there. Children need to be taught that certain things are not acceptable, whether they're caught doing it or not.
It's all in how you look at it, I suppose - what you emphasise. My daughter has never been taught to be ashamed of her body. Instead, she was taught to have too much pride to put it on display in some vulgar fashion. She looks at girls who do and feels kind of sorry for them, that they would bow to external forces to such an extreme extent as to feel it necessary to look tacky.
I've written before on the convoluted lengths the religion I was raised in went to instill fear and shame in me, as a means of control. Because of that kind of thinking, I ended up spending a big chunk of my youth as a bitter little libertine.
Then I remembered Honor and Joy. They give you the same net result as their twisted shadows, but you're alot happier along the way.
I'm pretty damned glad I remembered before I had to raise my kid.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:46 am
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:15 am
Great post Plissken. I think you've captured the difference between that and shame perfectly, and I can only say that I agree with you.
Shame only has a negative value. Those that you mention are positive values.
That isn't to say that I don't agree with Cail about the importance of parents teaching values, and not blaming school, rock music, computer games, etc. But those values need positive reinforcement, not negative.
As in your example, value your body, don't be ashamed of it. Same as your actions, and your self-image. Similar result, way different side-effects.
--A
Shame only has a negative value. Those that you mention are positive values.
That isn't to say that I don't agree with Cail about the importance of parents teaching values, and not blaming school, rock music, computer games, etc. But those values need positive reinforcement, not negative.
As in your example, value your body, don't be ashamed of it. Same as your actions, and your self-image. Similar result, way different side-effects.
--A
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:08 pm
No argument there guys. You should never be ashamed of your body, but there are certain activities that you can do with your body that are unacceptable prior to a certain age. I agree that we (as parents) should teach pride and respect, but the flip side of that is that there are certain activities that are beneath our kids, and that if they chose to do those things they should be unhappy with themselves.
Put it this way, you fail a test in school, you should be ashamed.
Put it this way, you fail a test in school, you should be ashamed.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:55 pm
I agree, if you have been properly taught, and if you do not have a learning disability.Cail wrote:Put it this way, you fail a test in school, you should be ashamed.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:56 pm
Absolutely, people aren't responsible for learning disabilities.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:51 pm
Or, you can focus on the test at school as an opportunity for the child to prove her abilities. I should point out that there is another element that makes this effective: you have to find and identify a community for the child to belong to, and make good performance/behavior a part of being in that community. People commonly use churches as this community, but I find that limiting. I prefer family: "In this family, we always/never..."
It's harder, as I have to modify my own behavior in order to keep things consistent. But at least I don't have to contend with the results of some "or else Jesus will cry, and you will burn forever in a lake of fire" mentality.
It's harder, as I have to modify my own behavior in order to keep things consistent. But at least I don't have to contend with the results of some "or else Jesus will cry, and you will burn forever in a lake of fire" mentality.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:58 am
I'm not sure that the "shame" Cail refers to needs to be a "religious" one, as it were, but nonetheless, I find myself agreeing with you again Plissken.
In other words, (If I understand you correctly), you shouldn't be made to feel "shame" per se if you fail, but should be made to understand that it shows your abilities are not yet "up to standard" or whatever.
--A
In other words, (If I understand you correctly), you shouldn't be made to feel "shame" per se if you fail, but should be made to understand that it shows your abilities are not yet "up to standard" or whatever.
--A
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:54 am
What? If a child is up to standard and fails a test (shoot, even if they're not up to standard because they're not studying), they should be damn unhappy about that.
Where's the problem with this?
Where's the problem with this?
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:14 am
If they are up to standard, or should be, then yeah, they should be...aaarg...."ashamed" for want of a better word.
Perhaps it's just that "shame' has such a religious connotation...
--A
Perhaps it's just that "shame' has such a religious connotation...
--A
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:30 am
I mean nothing religious by my use of the word shame.
Starting in the '60s, there was a push to remove competition from life. Grades went to a simple pass/fail system, self-esteem became more important than success. Well, that obviously did a wonderful job for us, now we've got to figure out how to put the country back together again.
Starting in the '60s, there was a push to remove competition from life. Grades went to a simple pass/fail system, self-esteem became more important than success. Well, that obviously did a wonderful job for us, now we've got to figure out how to put the country back together again.
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:49 am
Avatar wrote:I'm not sure that the "shame" Cail refers to needs to be a "religious" one, as it were...
Yeah, I guessed. But still, when I hear somebody say, "You should be ashamed," I tend to think, "Of What!?!"
Don't be ashamed of what you're not, be proud of what you are. But again, I know that that's not the context you're using it in.
It's a very tenuous concept anyway, isn't it? Isn't what we're trying to say that failure, for example, should make us feel "bad"?
--A
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:34 pm
I'm not sure if there is one, because the kid hasn't failed a test yet. In our family, we study and we do our best. We get plenty of sleep the night before and we eat a good breakfast the day of the test...Cail wrote:What? If a child is up to standard and fails a test (shoot, even if they're not up to standard because they're not studying), they should be damn unhappy about that.
Where's the problem with this?
EDIT: Cail, I'm certainly not disparaging other parenting techniques. These are thoughts I was arguing on the thread on Pride a while back, and I'm kind of still arguing against the premise that all pride is bad.
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:15 am
There can be no honor without shame.Avatar wrote:If they are up to standard, or should be, then yeah, they should be...aaarg...."ashamed" for want of a better word.
Perhaps it's just that "shame' has such a religious connotation...
--A
A Code of Chivalry
Prowess: To seek excellence in all endeavors expected of a knight, martial and otherwise, seeking strength to be used in the service of justice, rather than in personal aggrandizement.
Justice: Seek always the path of 'right', unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Recognize that the sword of justice can be a terrible thing, so it must be tempered by humanity and mercy. If the 'right' you see rings agrees with others, and you seek it out without bending to the temptation for expediency, then you will earn renown beyond measure.
Loyalty: Be known for unwavering commitment to the people and ideals you choose to live by. There are many places where compromise is expected; loyalty is not amongst them.
Defense: The ideal knight was sworn by oath to defend his liege lord and those who depended upon him. Seek always to defend your nation, your family, and those to whom you believe worthy of loyalty.
Courage: Being a knight often means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one. Be prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the precepts and people you value. At the same time, a knight should seek wisdom to see that stupidity and courage are cousins. Courage also means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief.
Faith: A knight must have faith in his beliefs, for faith roots him and gives hope against the despair that human failings create.
Humility: Value first the contributions of others; do not boast of your own accomplishments, let others do this for you. Tell the deeds of others before your own, according them the renown rightfully earned through virtuous deeds. In this way the office of knighthood is well done and glorified, helping not only the gentle spoken of but also all who call themselves knights.
Largesse: Be generous in so far as your resources allow; largesse used in this way counters gluttony. It also makes the path of mercy easier to discern when a difficult decision of justice is required.
Nobility: Seek great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight, realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens. Nobility also has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in the service of rightness.
Franchise: Seek to emulate everything as sincerely as possible, not for the reason of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and virtue.
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:45 am
Funny, I don't see anything about shame in that list.
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:00 am
Thats because there is ONLY honor, and no shame? 
(I know, it's a stretch!
I can't help it, heh. )
How about "Without shame,you have only honor".
the despair that human failings create.
(I know, it's a stretch!
I can't help it, heh. )How about "Without shame,you have only honor".
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:45 am
I don't know.
Plissken, what about when (hypothetically) the kid does?
I'm torn on this, I really am. On the one hand, I'm opposed to the culture of irresponsibility, on the other, to "shame" as a "punishment," certainly as "lifestyle."
I know that Cail is talking about it as a motivator, inasmuch as "you did bad, use that feeling to convince you to do better," but I can't help feeling it's a slippery slope between self-worth and self-loathing.
--A
Plissken, what about when (hypothetically) the kid does?
I'm torn on this, I really am. On the one hand, I'm opposed to the culture of irresponsibility, on the other, to "shame" as a "punishment," certainly as "lifestyle."
I know that Cail is talking about it as a motivator, inasmuch as "you did bad, use that feeling to convince you to do better," but I can't help feeling it's a slippery slope between self-worth and self-loathing.
--A