Kids(Discussion, or Socratic Seminar)

Kids
I have...an idea of sorts everyone, what if...per say, children only had to be raised enough to be moral, right, ect.?

What would the world be like?
How much more leeway would the adults get raised like so?
How much sadness could really be avoided that way by not being stuck with people who criticize every little thing?

Well...its really an odd thing, becasue in the end we usually turn out the same. I mean, we may or may not be more unhappy for the time we are being raised, but I mean...I am finding odd results. My parrents were loving and suportive, and may have been slightly harsh, but It was great. However, I am also finding that alot of others who I am friends with have suffered under uncaring, neglectful or overly strict parrents. There are divorces, there are deaths, there is heartbreak...yet...I find that friends become a strong binding force, and of all the FTT/FD family I have, we all are very similar.

That said, moreleeway wpn;t make a worse kid, or a better kid, but will save some heartbreak, stress and such. However, some parrents love the feeling of control they get, and really don;t change the way they treat their kids. Greed, power, control is what ruins our childhoods. With more careing and leeway, it may be an easier road, and help lower the cases of mental illness in children..I think. I am not a doctor, don;t take my word

Well, unfortunately, that would only work in an ideal circumstances, and there would be too much controversy about certain issues.

One of the biggest problems is that how are you to know when a kid is 'moral' and what is 'moral' every single person will have a different definition for what their idea of what it is to be moral. And then everyone would get into big fights about whether they are moral or not. You'd have some adults backing kids up saying that they are ready to be let go, and then you'd have some furiously combating it, just like certain religions fight each other because of their values. In all likelihood, it might even end up in a civil war.

And, not only would it be the adults who were arguing about whether their kid was moral or not, but so would the kids. They may believe that they are ready to be let go and moral, but in reality they might not even be close to ready. Or on the other hand, they might be ready, and completely able to fend for themselves with good moral values, but everyone else is telling them they aren't.

An answer to what would the world be like? Well, in the IDEAL circumstances (which could never happen, unfortunately) it might be a lot better, if society had all agreed on a set moral values for a child to reach before they were let go, and if they were able to determine if they had met that outcome. And it might be a lot easier on some kids, and some parents. But then again, if it were a society like that, everything would be different. Everything, the world as we know it now, would cease to exist. There would be a much larger demand for jobs and pretty much everything that adults need when they leave home, and then there wouldn't be enough resources to support that demand, and all the countries would possibly go into an economic down spin. But that is really the best and worst case scenario, there could be a whole world of other possibilities.

And the way that parents parent, is all based on their mind, nothing will change that really, if they have a mind that is prone to being sadistic and mean to their children, no matter when they get let into the world is going to change that, its just psychology, everyones mind works differently and there will always be a generally similar outcome for one individual, its just nature. But again, in the ideal circumstance, it may be better also.

Also, it is really hard to say what kind of emotional hardships may or may not be avoided if this were the way that society worked, because really, there is no way of telling what it would be like, and highly unlikely to actually happen because of the vast degree of differing views on morality and maturity. But statistically with the number of people in the world, there would be a number that would more than likely avoid emotional hardships.

But in the end, I don't think that such a society could every exist. The issue of morals and maturity differ so greatly from person to person, that you could never get a majority to see eye-to-eye on a set definition or bounds.

In reply to both, true, in a utopia this would work.

But there is a general view of 'good' in the world, is there not? No one would ever, EVER be perfect but as the world changes, the people who really stand out are people who put the step forward and choose the one thing that would help the world

Take Opra, she's helping poor kids of Africa obtain an education! She's spending her own pocket money to help another!

Look at Bono, he's started One and helped changed the world as well

Another one is Lance Armstrong, look how many people wore those LiveStrong bands? I know I had one, still do


I mean how many people could be changed, lives fixed, better people! Instead of people trying to guide the later generations to what THEY think is right. I mean my motto would be to guide them to general manners and let them form their own opinions

Bullseye!

Well, there are a lot of good people as it is, but all those good people weren't let go from their families to live on their own once they had become 'moral', they were just exceptional people that got a lucky break, made some money, and then were publicly able to do things to help other people. Not to demean any of their work, they have all contributed great things to the world to make it better, but they all had their own ways of growing up.

And though it may seem like there is a general view of 'good' in society, that is all becuase of what the media is telling us to believe is good. and What we believe is good, because of the media. There is no majority in the world that has a similar view as to what good is, and even if there were a majority, it wouldn't be big enough to say to the other minorities that they had to follow their rules now. That would just lead to more wars, because some people believe that this is the general view of good and some other people believe that this is the general view of good. It's why wars are started over religion. And why wars are started over anything really, someone believes something, and another person doesn't. You could never get 100% of the world to agree to a view of good. Sure you might have a majority (although it would be like, almost impossible) and it would be under 60% of the world probably, but what are you supposed to do about that other 40%? 240,000,000 is a lot of people to tell to be quiet and follow everyone else's beliefs. And that is assuming you have 60% of the world agreed.

And generally, I find that a lot of kids are shy, and though they may be fully mentally capable to handle themselves on their own, they might not be willing to take that step forward and make themselves known, and then they would be stuck, while the other braver kids step forward, make a difference thus being let go.

Also, although Oprah is doing great for people around the world, she is somewhat in it for herself. I may make some people mad with this one. But if she were truly doing it solely for the good of the world, she wouldn't make what she does so blatantly and extravagantly public. There are so many activists out there, both with and without money, that do all their good work towards humanity totally out of the publics eye, and these are the people, the unsung heroes, that should be commended. Although people like Oprah are doing a great thing, they gain a lot out of it too, and they know they are gaining a lot out of it, so continue to make it more and more public. For the amount that Oprah puts out to help people, she will make triple or more because it was public and people will feel sympathy for her and buy her stuff and things like that. But this is just my personal opinion on publicly 'martyr' celebrities.

i would dissagree on the result being a better place, through trama personality, charicter, and knoledge is gained! but it is a nice thought to think about. ( first post since rehab : p)

It may be ending up a worse place in the beginning but think about it! When the KIDS are recognized as an adult, or laws that make it so when it is, or they are brought up and taught the right things to make them civil and such, they can be led to their own opinions! Now, mind you, if a child wouldn't listen and isn't 'civil' to a general manner, they'd be stuck at home or took somewhere that will make better use of them and keep them out of the way. Think of how many people could change the world given the chance like that!

Not simply the fact that it is a single minded world, but people would generally (in a sense) be led to derive their own thoughts and opinions rather than where we are all spear-heading at that generation and pass it on. We could accomplish so much more than simply helping one thing out, we'd have people branching off into multiple groups to ordain as helping their community and such, not just,"Oh no, our economy and ozone are going down the shitter," it'd be helped along with the rest of our problems.

I'm not saying what people would think, I'm saying the neccesary things that are required to be at least considered decent and have laws to prevent parents from over working the subject of their behavior on every little thing there is they mess up on. All adults have their blunders as well, parents just over shoot that and pick on the kids.

As to keeping parents in line there'd also be keeping the kids in line, there'd be things they CAN'T do as well. Like how we keep adults in line, ect. y'know?

I'm not saying don't let kids be controlled at all, just simply, let them form their own conclusions on things
(And Opra was only to prove a point, dun like her either)

But unfortunately, you can't look at it like that, in my posts above, I have looked at the argument from both sides of it starting off, and well into progression, and both ways it can't work. The demand for jobs and resources would be overwhelming and the economies would crash, and with so many 'free functioning' people there would be more conflict.

You have to look at it from everyones perspective, instead of looking at it only in one way, of course you will have people who in your opinion have a good idea of what it means to be 'moral or good' but there are sooo soo many more that have different opinions, and without that the world would not function, and would be a dull place where nothing out of the ordinary happened.

Also, a lot of what is being argued is sounding like it is turning into a genocide. What about these kids that can't achieve what the society has deemed as 'good and fuctional'? Where do they go?. You can't just shove them off into a home somewhere, that is like prejudice to the extreme. I would make connections to WWII, but that may be a little bit extreme, and they are pretty evident anyway. Just think 'final solution' and it sounds kinda similar. Or at least, that is what it sounds like is going to be done with the people who don't make it.

And I wouldn't want to live in a world like that, where only a certain and specific group of people are allowed to act among the people of significance, it's like segregating everyone else because they aren't the same as you. And also, if this were to be an actuality, there is nothing that could point to all the world's problems being solved like that either. All the kids that would be let go at a younger age, are still let go to do their life changing things as it is, just a few years later, but that isn't going to make that big of a change.

And if you were to even attempt to establish a society based on these practices, it would all have to be about what people would think, otherwise there would be no way to tell what was moral and who was able to become an 'adult' and then when you do have people thinking, which is what you need, you have people fighting because no one will agree on one definition.

And as much as it is hard to admit, if kids at a young age were given complete freedom to do as they will, barely any of them would actually pursue what is necessary to achieve all these life changing things. It is only through the guidance of adults, and the schools that they go on to achieve even what has been today, without it, society would be a flop. (And I never even though I'd say something in support of schools xD).

I believe that it would probably be better for society to have conflicts, than pretty much nothing. Without conflict, we lose creativity and aptitude. If we had the perfect utopia, even then it wouldn't be perect, because a utopia has everything a person could desire...but at what cost? I know for a fact there are a lot of people who would desire to be able to play video games all day. What for them? Would they just sit around all day, losing body mass, losiong energy until they just crumble away? Doesn't seem utopian to me...seems dystopian.

A human's worth is valued by his achievements in life. If we have the ability to make our own choices, proven we are mature and responsible, many of us still wouldn't take the leap to leave the life of our parents. Some would, yes, but the idea I'm afraid is flawed, because then you've got people who are allowed to leave with no consequences, when others are stuck with parents and not given the choice. it is the right of humans to make their own choices of course, but there are too many, who still need guidance to make some choices. Parents are supposed to guide children to learn all they can, until their minds are matured, and they are ready to 'leave the nest'. The new generation learns from the former, and so on.

Let's say that you've got a very responsible person, who is wise enough to know to get a job, work hard, etc. Given the right to leave their parents, would they want to? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. I get to have time to myself, time without heavy work. I see my dad come home every day, and fall into his chair, fast asleep. I'm content to keep my less taxing work thanks.