Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In ancient times, if you went stumbling around in the woods after dark (bad choice) the saber toothed tiger got you. Now it is more likely you will just get fat and lose your money. Either way it will do you no good to blame the predator, they're just doing what they do best!
The saber-tooth tiger was a pre-government phenomenon. Theoretically, what is the purpose of modern post-monarchy government?
Isn't it to regulate human society in such a way as to level off the imbalance between the predators and the prey? If the function of the government is to enable the predators to do what they do best, who need's government.
By the way, the Libertarian answer is "But we don't need government, we need the liberty to be the predators", although then don't exactly put it in those words.
I'm sorry, but if a little kid plunks down in front of a TV she's going to want to watch cartoons, not the history channel.
My Point: If that parent is not "there" for that kid (and how many are, with stressed out single parent households or parents spaced out on one thing or another), that kid in the course of one week is going to be absorbing thousands of overt and subtle messages from the media. Ultimately, parents do not teach kids as much as they want to believe they do. Parents may dote all while the kids are getting their stuff from their peers and they are all getting bombarded with relentless media messages that suggest rather strongly what's cool to eat, wear, do, and say. Kids have a culture of their own and this was made possible by the breakdown of family post-ag culture and with the advent of TV.
When you were growing up (assuming you were born in the last 40 years), didn't you eat fruit loops and didn't you "need" certain kinds of clothes and toys? A parent can push whole wheat sandwiches for lunch (been there, done that x 4) and advise to wear a winter jacket, but bet you a thousand bucks that sandwich is thrown into the bin more times that not while the kid "shares" others' lunches and undoes his shoelaces and ditches his coat. And pity the poor kid these days who is stifled by his parents from being one of the "gang." Becomes rather a loner, gets bullied, and may think of taking his life. This is serious stuff, and any parent today had better clue in to the primary role the Media have in their childrens' lives.
Who owns the Media? Profiteers.
"For we let our young men and women go out unarmed in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them to read we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. ..They do not know what the words mean. ..they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects. " -Sayers
"For we let our young men and women go out unarmed in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them to read we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. ..They do not know what the words mean. ..they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects. " -Sayers
Newenglandgirl, are you a parent by any chance?
I am a parent x 4. I brought up my kids to be smart, self reliant and independent. I armed them with what they needed to know, how to be street smart and compassionate and wise, and also careful. At each step along the stages of their maturity, I encouraged them to make their own decisions for better or worse. And I encouraged them to talk with me and their dad about outcomes, and how to evaluate their experiences. We never forced our values on them. They turned out great, drug-free responsible citizens. Not easy to do in today's culture, but I am not sorry that I allowed them to make decisions rather than overprotect them. I also taught them how to "listen" to the media, and how not to. Two of them did their best in inner city schools that parents today would prevent their kids from attending, preferring something more protective. I taught them how to handle different situations and how to be in contact (and how not) with less desirable influences. They learned how to take care of themselves from day one. I could have sent them to private schools but preferred not to.
There are two kinds of people. Those you can trust and those you can't. Success depends on your ability to judge which is which, and that is the most important thing you can learn.
The saber-tooth tiger was a pre-government phenomenon. Theoretically, what is the purpose of modern post-monarchy government?
Isn't it to regulate human society in such a way as to level off the imbalance between the predators and the prey? If the function of the government is to enable the predators to do what they do best, who need's government.
By the way, the Libertarian answer is "But we don't need government, we need the liberty to be the predators", although then don't exactly put it in those words.
Theoretically? I would say yes. Does it always work out that way? Clearly, no.
I agree with your portrayal of Libertarianism. Although, I doubt many of them have the stomach to handle the true consequences. Or any idea what would transpire if their wishes ever cane true.
I am a parent x 4. I brought up my kids to be smart, self reliant and independent. I armed them with what they needed to know, how to be street smart and compassionate and wise, and also careful. At each step along the stages of their maturity, I encouraged them to make their own decisions for better or worse. And I encouraged them to talk with me and their dad about outcomes, and how to evaluate their experiences. We never forced our values on them. They turned out great, drug-free responsible citizens. Not easy to do in today's culture, but I am not sorry that I allowed them to make decisions rather than overprotect them. I also taught them how to "listen" to the media, and how not to. Two of them did their best in inner city schools that parents today would prevent their kids from attending, preferring something more protective. I taught them how to handle different situations and how to be in contact (and how not) with less desirable influences. They learned how to take care of themselves from day one. I could have sent them to private schools but preferred not to.
Your point? Sayers' questionable point?
You just proved my point that you can raise children who will not be manipulated by marketing. Sayers does not have a questionable point. She was concerned about today's citizens falling for marketing which is similar to what you were saying.
There are two kinds of people. Those you can trust and those you can't. Success depends on your ability to judge which is which, and that is the most important thing you can learn.
How do people obtain this ability to judge which is which? One way is to ask questions. Another way is to trust your gut. Believe it or not, some parents and educators teach the opposite. Children answer questions, not ask them.
This is not an example of being manipulated by marketing because we chose to buy a new mattress. When my husband and I decided on the mattress and were sitting at the associate's desk, he asked if we would like to buy some kind of insurance. I refused and he had this condescending laugh. I said, "You know, I no longer want the mattress. Let's go."
My husband and I both agreed that when one of us decides not to follow through on a deal, no matter how close, the other will follow with no questions asked.
You just proved my point that you can raise children who will not be manipulated by marketing. Sayers does not have a questionable point. She was concerned about today's citizens falling for marketing which is similar to what you were saying.
That's not the bigger point I was trying to make.
The basics of the media:
- "The media" is a plural term but has singular embodiment according to the ideology it serves. In capitalist societies, as in Communist China, North Korea, and in fascism, the media is the main support system and loud (and subtle) speaker for that ideology. In the West the cultures may admit something slightly left like NPR, which is by and large, even with its more "liberal" seeming content, still conservative (society-stabilizing) in its content. The system in any culture does not allow radical (ie, dissident) viewpoints. There's ways of dealing with that, starting with blocking.
- "The media" has vast power to turn whole cultures in different directions, for better or worse. The most prominent example is how the material values saturating media content have turned American life away from family- centered, small-town and largely (small scale) agricultural life to the promise of individual riches and the excitement of city life.
So now we have a largely discombobulated society that has no central cohesion other than the quest for individual prosperity, in which there will always be winners and losers and some in between. The media has made for much discontent among the latter, but rarely reports on it. Most feature stories do not center on the plights of the poor, and when they do it is a left-leaning team of reporters that produces it.
- The media is the prime influence on society, and you cannot hide kids from it. It's out there, they will find it, absorb it, and make what they will of it (along with their peers and friends) regardless of parental influence. Teaching kids self reliance and allowing them to make guided choices supports the idea of self determination. A kid who wants to grow up to be a farmer instead of a lawyer (there's a youtube video somewhere on this) is making a choice based not on his parents' wishes but on his/her own inner belief and value system. I'd like to think this self-determination is from good parental influence, but I know from experience with many youth that there is little or no correlation between "good" parenting and a responsible adult.
- Teach kids self reliance and the consequences of their choices instead of directing their lives (imo).
- "The media" is a plural term but has singular embodiment according to the ideology it serves. In capitalist societies, as in Communist China, North Korea, and in fascism, the media is the main support system and loud (and subtle) speaker for that ideology. In the West the cultures may admit something slightly left like NPR, which is by and large, even with its more "liberal" seeming content, still conservative (society-stabilizing) in its content. The system in any culture does not allow radical (ie, dissident) viewpoints. There's ways of dealing with that, starting with blocking.
- "The media" has vast power to turn whole cultures in different directions, for better or worse. The most prominent example is how the material values saturating media content have turned American life away from family- centered, small-town and largely (small scale) agricultural life to the promise of individual riches and the excitement of city life.
So now we have a largely discombobulated society that has no central cohesion other than the quest for individual prosperity, in which there will always be winners and losers and some in between. The media has made for much discontent among the latter, but rarely reports on it. Most feature stories do not center on the plights of the poor, and when they do it is a left-leaning team of reporters that produces it.
- The media is the prime influence on society, and you cannot hide kids from it. It's out there, they will find it, absorb it, and make what they will of it (along with their peers and friends) regardless of parental influence. Teaching kids self reliance and allowing them to make guided choices supports the idea of self determination. A kid who wants to grow up to be a farmer instead of a lawyer (there's a youtube video somewhere on this) is making a choice based not on his parents' wishes but on his/her own inner belief and value system. I'd like to think this self-determination is from good parental influence, but I know from experience with many youth that there is little or no correlation between "good" parenting and a responsible adult.
- Teach kids self reliance and the consequences of their choices instead of directing their lives (imo).
I agree about there being little or no correlation between "good" parenting and a responsible adult. One reason for this is because "good" parenting is not even agreed upon. You really don't know what goes on behind close doors.
I do agree with your last statement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
