How honest should parents be?

[brewer]

As honest as they can be without doing damage to the child.

[Excited Penguin]

You took it to task? No, you fucking didn't, dipshit. You just appealed to emotion rather than reason in order to get in a cheap shot and score a few brownie points.

[abaris]

Surely most people would say the best way is somewhere inbetween total insulation from the real world while at the same time not telling them all the mentally disturbing facts about the world too soon?

You mean, like being exposed to news coverage about casualties and killed civilians, to learn about death? In my case it was Vietnam. Today there's a bit more on the same lines.

I say, if a child asks, be as honest as possible and certainly not evasive. It only incites curiosity and insecurity.

[Cato]

You took it to task? No, you fucking didn't, dipshit. You just appealed to emotion rather than reason in order to get in a cheap shot and score a few brownie points.

Hardly, go back and consider my observation about discreet data. Your reasoning capability isn't near what you give it credit to be. You are simply wrong here.

[Excited Penguin]

That sounds like overdoing it. Did you consult how many kids do in fact get kidnapped on average, before you went ahead and told them that?

This is incredibly stupid. Try and console a parent who's child is missing/harmed/dead with your precious statistics and let me know how it works out. Statistical parenting, hilarious. Your statistics don't apply for any given family since the input is discrete; is your child safe? Yes or no. Thena acted appropriately. Perhaps you missed the bit where she exhausted other methods prior to being blunt about potential dangers.

And you feign ignorance of why people react to your input as they do prompting that hideous 'Go For It' thread. Actions of a narcissistic cunt.

If one in 6 billion people died of a certain cause every 2 centuries, would you then take statistics into consideration or would you devote all resources towards preventing that one death because of how discrete the nature of life is? Your reasoning is faulty and my argument stands as it is. You fail to comprehend the whole point of consulting statistics in order to inform your actions in life. One doesn't necessarily have to and it varies from case to case how much importance you should give to them, but you shouldn't dismiss them altogether either.

Would you terrify millions of kids without even knowing if it works just because of bad parenting? You should keep an eye on your kid all on your own, not make him do it for you if he's not old enough to and is residing in a dangerous environment, like a crowded place in public.


I don't like to get into arguments of this sort because you're clearly smart enough to have got my point and yet decidedly chose to attack me out of peer pressure, thus your inevitably faulty reasoning and borderline strawmanning. You'll surely continue to do it, no matter how much sense I make, because you're not sincere about your motives here.

[paulpablo]

Surely most people would say the best way is somewhere inbetween total insulation from the real world while at the same time not telling them all the mentally disturbing facts about the world too soon?

You mean, like being exposed to news coverage about casualties and killed civilians, to learn about death? In my case it was Vietnam. Today there's a bit more on the same lines.

I say, if a child asks, be as honest as possible and certainly not evasive. It only incites curiosity and insecurity.

Well children these days probably have even more exposure to footage than me or you ever did. I'm 31 but I was still limited to dial up internet for 1 or 2 hours a night when I was a teen, and before that we had no internet. A curious kid with none stop broadband
 can easily google some fucked up war footage or whatever else, but I guess google does have safe search options and there are ways to try and prevent it.

[Losty]

This is incredibly stupid. Try and console a parent who's child is missing/harmed/dead with your precious statistics and let me know how it works out. Statistical parenting, hilarious. Your statistics don't apply for any given family since the input is discrete; is your child safe? Yes or no. Thena acted appropriately. Perhaps you missed the bit where she exhausted other methods prior to being blunt about potential dangers.

And you feign ignorance of why people react to your input as they do prompting that hideous 'Go For It' thread. Actions of a narcissistic cunt.

If one in 6 billion people died of a certain cause every 2 centuries, would you then take statistics into consideration or would you devote all resources towards preventing that one death because of how discrete the nature of life is? Your reasoning is faulty and my argument stands as it is. You fail to comprehend the whole point of consulting statistics in order to inform your actions in life. One doesn't necessarily have to and it varies from case to case how much importance you should give to them, but you shouldn't dismiss them altogether either.

Would you terrify millions of kids without even knowing if it works just because of bad parenting? You should keep an eye on your kid all on your own, not make him do it for you if he's not old enough to and is residing in a dangerous environment, like a crowded place in public.


I don't like to get into arguments of this sort because you're clearly smart enough to have got my point and yet decidedly chose to attack me because of peer pressure, thus your inevitably faulty reasoning and borderline strawmanning. You'll surely continue to do it, no matter how much sense I make, because you're not sincere about your motives here.

When it's your own fucking child you take every possible risk into consideration because you don't want to imagine trying to live with yourself when your child becomes one of the few who are abducted because you didn't take the time to teach them that going out alone is dangerous.

[Excited Penguin]

If one in 6 billion people died of a certain cause every 2 centuries, would you then take statistics into consideration or would you devote all resources towards preventing that one death because of how discrete the nature of life is? Your reasoning is faulty and my argument stands as it is. You fail to comprehend the whole point of consulting statistics in order to inform your actions in life. One doesn't necessarily have to and it varies from case to case how much importance you should give to them, but you shouldn't dismiss them altogether either.

Would you terrify millions of kids without even knowing if it works just because of bad parenting? You should keep an eye on your kid all on your own, not make him do it for you if he's not old enough to and is residing in a dangerous environment, like a crowded place in public.


I don't like to get into arguments of this sort because you're clearly smart enough to have got my point and yet decidedly chose to attack me because of peer pressure, thus your inevitably faulty reasoning and borderline strawmanning. You'll surely continue to do it, no matter how much sense I make, because you're not sincere about your motives here.

When it's your own fucking child you take every possible risk into consideration because you don't want to imagine trying to live with yourself when your child becomes one of the few who are abducted because you didn't take the time to teach them that going out alone is dangerous.

Now we get to the root of the problem. If you devoted half the time you do on processing feelings to thinking you would be in a far better position to handle the risks involved in raising a child.

[Losty]

EP if you devoted half your time being a decent human being instead of going around throwing inaccurate advice on things you have know qualifications for in the most insulting way possible you wouldn't be such an insufferable dickhead.

[Excited Penguin]

That's neither here nor there.