Totalitarianist

I would judge that children are not only morally superior to adults in every possible way, but

1) children are several times more intelligent than adults, if we define intelligence in terms of one's capacity to learn. I will explain.

To the child, most things he will come come across are relatively new; consequently he learns at a much faster rate than an adult, and retains more of everything he processes. If an adult could learn like a child, he would certainly be amongst the most highly gifted of all geniuses: and there would appear, even to him, to be no limit to his potential of acquiring information and manipulating it accordingly.

2) Children are not sexual beings. They can live quite contently without sexual "pleasure". Desire causes more pain than anything else, for when the desire cannot be fulfilled, mental anguish follows. The profounder the desire, the more pain. And sex is one of the profoundest of all desires -- and the child will never suffer from this highly undesirable desire. The child is immune to depression caused by lack of sexual contact. In short, the child is immune to one of the worst forms of pain.

3) Children are more inclined to treat individuals as individuals. Society teaches children to discriminate, and to illogically treat individuals as something more significant than they actually are; that is to say, though they can perceive differences in individuals, they do not treat the Jewish boy across the street as a Jew, but as an individual; in fact, children do not even think of people in terms of "people", or persons in terms of "persons"; rather, they think of people more or less along the lines of spatio-temporal instances, without minds (or with minds, if he is a bit older). Hence it follows that the child is blind to stereotypes, since everything is new to him, and since all things and events are instances.

4) The child is highly dependent, and is therefore a model citizen. Society literally depends upon the citizens' dependence upon it.

5) Children cannot do wrong unless they are taught to do wrong. But they will learn.

Also, some research indicates that the child thinks of most things as sentient, as possessing a mind; the child therefore gives consciousness to everyone, and meaning implies consciousness. It might be said, therefore, that the child naturally gives meaning to everything, making him less likely to suffer from depression, without the need of a God, or some other fantasy. This seems contradictory to parts of #3, but, of course, this applies to children of a different age-group.

ju'iblex

i disagree specifically with this particular point. Children are not taught to do wrong and are not inherently 'moral', their actions are deemed wrong by the dominant ideology in their environment and this ideology is imposed via language and example from a very early age. I keep recommending you read some Foucault, he deals with this subject in particular. Your logic presupposes a system to compare their actions to before they are 'taught' wrong, which, is an absurd concept.

Ronin

Well-punished laughter,
Token of a child's longing:
Grown-ups disappoint.

HaysooChreesto!

You obviously don't have kids. I love my kids and would die for them all in a heartbeat. However, they are liars. Big liars. All of them. They don't have to be taught to be pint sized bullshitters, they learn it on their own quickly enough.

Not sexual beings? That's a gas. It's apparent that you've never seen toddlers pull down their pants and furiously start masturbating. At some point in their lives, all three of my kids did this publicly at least once.

Model citizens? Really? Hearing my kids yell and fight with each other about the most trivial bullshit is real life evidence against that. They routinely steal each others crap---usually just for the sake of pissing the other one off-at least as far as I can tell.
Once, when my second daughter was only 5, she stole some doll clothes from Toys r Us. My wife had to take her back and make her apologize for it. She knew it was wrong and she wasn't upset because she did something wrong, she was upset because she got caught.

Do kids treat other kids as individuals? That's accurate. I have a 3.5 year old daughter who can size up who she can bully and who she can't in a New York minute. There's also kids who are able to pick out nerds and cruelly ridicule them. Thankfully, my kids only do that to each other.

Children are dependent when it's convenient for them. They are constantly pushing to be independent in every area that matters to them-which is usually EVERY AREA.

Kids are kids. Period. To me, mine are the most precious things in the world and the mere thought of real harm coming to them makes me cringe. However, I also recognize them for who and what they really are. They're not some sort of perfect human that we should all learn from. They're flawed from the day they're born until the day they die, just like everyone else.

Kids are wonderful, but it sure is weird that when my wife and I can get away from them for a couple days that I'm reminded of why I married this woman in the first place. The bickering stops, our stress levels drop, and we get along wonderfully.
But when we come home, hug our kids, and settle in, the aggravation starts all over again.
It's worth it though. But I will never lie, and say my kids are perfect angels. They're children and therefore, a tremendous pain in the ass at times. And that's just the truth.

ybnormal

Originally posted by lamma:
"They don't have to be taught to be pint sized bullshitters, they learn it on their own quickly enough."

Putting both be taught and they learn it in the first paragraph not only kinda makes Totalitarianist's whole point for both related threads, it also kinda negates the remainder of your post for me.

For children to learn it on their own would require their absolute isolation from all human contact from birth, which reinforces Totalitarianist's point.

I reckon we could get into a semantics war over say, whether a child watching TV is "being taught" or is "learning on his own", but since it is only adults providing the source and the content, that is more "being taught", which again agrees with T's point.

And if you think your kids are oblivious to your frustration with them, and are not learning from you, then that also kinda makes T's point.

Same as with your "Not sexual beings?" comments... just because a toddler is innocently itching a scratch, doesn't make it "sexual"... you could just as well say a toddler scratching his butt is "sexual" too... or sucking his thumb... all that sexual stuff is in your mind, not his... and it is you who is passing that instruction on to the child... if innocently itching that scratch makes you say a toddler is less than a "perfect angel", just because you are embarrassed in public, then that's your problem... not the angel's... the fact that most kids are shamed and taught that such self-touching is bad, once again makes T's point... it is only "bad" because an adult is teaching that it's bad. Until then, it's a totally innocent act.

What I think you guys are missing from both of T's posts, is that it's fairly impossible to make a comparison here... where are we able to find kids who are raised without the influence of adult shame and guilt and anger and lying and stealing and so forth, not to mention outright abuse?

Until one can demonstrate that each child's growing-up environment is not the major factor in his ultimate character and personality, then T's claims must be seriously considered, if not outright accepted. Otherwise, you'd have to demonstrate that every infant's character and personality is predetermined.

I see it all coming back to adult semantics... whether kids are "taught", or whether kids "learn". Both require adult input, but one word puts the onus on the adult, while the other defers the onus the toddler.

Totalitarianist

Ybnormal has it right.

You see, age depraves one's mind. The 3-5 year olds create their own values; as they age, the learn to do whatever they observe to be most popular; moreover, one could quite logically conclude that younger children are more scientifically inclined than older children; for the younger child is constantly concerned with the whys and wherefores; age will make him corporeal and shallow; he will concern himself chiefly with the practical application of things; nothing more.

Edit: Wow, too many semicolons.

Ronin

But where is the elusive membrane that demarcates the change?

---------------

War

War is a dull grey,
war looks like a red bloody knife,
war feels like a stabbing pain,
war smells like rotting cabbage,
war tastes like mouldy sprouts,
war sounds like a piercing scream,
war is evil

Peace
Peace is white,
peace looks like a white flying dove,
peace feels smooth and soft,
peace smells like flowers,
peace tastes like strawberries and cream,
peace sounds like a calm sea,
peace is happy

~ written at what age?

I have learned that it is not the years of one's life that either depraves or enamours the mind...but the unique life experiences and one's ability to find the mechanisms to cope with honesty, beauty and integrity.

VonEvilstein

All I have for this entire notion is a big "huh?"

Something very bad must have happened to you, to feel this way.

That and "huh?"

Do you really think that ignorance is bliss, then?

Ronin

...That and "huh?" and Do you really think that ignorance is bliss, then?

ROFL...NO one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Hayden

6) They can fit into small spaces, aiding in burglaries.

HR