zapatos Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Again and again. Year after year. One kid after another, this happens. And I see it year after year, again and again. Screw social interaction skills. Again and again. Year after year. One kid after another, this happens. And I see it year after year, again and again. Let's be careful about using Youtube and its appeal to emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Again and again. Year after year. One kid after another, this happens. And I see it year after year, again and again. Let's be careful about using Youtube and its appeal to emotion. That's correct. But you should probably compare the acts of kindness like this to the bullying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I have a feeling that both acts of kindness and bullying have been part and parcel of the human condition for... well, forever. Social media has made it a lot harder to have any escape from. When I was a kid the school day ended and there was a safe haven until the next day. Kids these days are connected 24/7. And the news media absolutely does make sure that we hear about every single unfortunate thing that happens - they thrive on sensationalizing misery and sorrow. Both of those things are technology related - technology has changed. Human nature has not. Human nature will not. I sometimes think we should treat social media the same way we treat alcohol: a really cool and enjoyable thing, but not suitable for minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 The concept of public schooling as welfare made me shiver, but I think we are getting too far off topic. We also seem to be talking next to each other, since I only know US schooling from Hollywood and most of you clearly have no clue about schooling in Belgium (I guess we have "heavily government-dependent" private schools, which are functionally public schools, but no independent private schools). How about the advantage of people being free to engage in mutually consensual activities? It's ultimately not about what's "better" in terms of results. It's about people being free to choose. The only reason to have public education is to provide an opportunity for education for those who are economically unable to fund the process. It's essentially a welfare program. I believe education is important, so I support the idea, but I surely do wish it was more well-executed than it is in modern America. I think children's rights have priority over personal freedoms of the parents. Even over freedom of religion (to attempt to steer this back to topic). About the suggestion that home schooling protects from suicide (slightly on topic, since home schooling often seems to be religion inspired): please check the facts. Suicide among homeschooled children. General youth suicide rates. While both studies are difficult to compare, and my Google-Fu isn't providing me with anything better, both give an 8% for children attempting suicide. 43% of the homeschooled children had considered suicide while 24% of the general adolescents had "seriously" considered suicide. I hope you are considering the fact that there are bullies in youth movements, in college/university and in any future jobs, before you send your children out there without any preparation. Bullies will happily pick out easy victims without defenses who like to talk about their mommy because they haven't seen anyone else all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I don't know. Are we also going to ban ultra orthodox Jewish schools? I only raised this point to highlight that there are limits to the freedom of private schools to teach whatever they like, but that it is not always clear where these limits should be. If a private school is teaching values against those of secular society, without openly inciting violence against any people, should they be tolerated? Is an ethos of unwillingness to integrate into society enough reason to close down a school? But i agree that the decision should be based on the particulars of what is being taught rather than based on the religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I think children's rights have priority over personal freedoms of the parents. Even over freedom of religion (to attempt to steer this back to topic). So. Freedom of religion, but parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children religion. Alright. Parents also shouldn't be allowed to teach their children lying is wrong, smoking is unhealthy, and that they should practice safe sex. All of those might lead to religious aspects. I have a feeling that both acts of kindness and bullying have been part and parcel of the human condition for... well, forever. Social media has made it a lot harder to have any escape from. When I was a kid the school day ended and there was a safe haven until the next day. Kids these days are connected 24/7. And the news media absolutely does make sure that we hear about every single unfortunate thing that happens - they thrive on sensationalizing misery and sorrow. Both of those things are technology related - technology has changed. Human nature has not. Human nature will not. I sometimes think we should treat social media the same way we treat alcohol: a really cool and enjoyable thing, but not suitable for minors. A good portion of kids have a healthy ratio of social media compared to their daily lives. But there's always the kids obsessed over it. But that's just gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 So. Freedom of religion, but parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children religion. Alright. Parents also shouldn't be allowed to teach their children lying is wrong, smoking is unhealthy, and that they should practice safe sex. All of those might lead to religious aspects. You're reading to much into this. I never claimed that parents can't teach their children about religion. I have no problem with it, as long as their basic right to proper education is not violated. Besides, the children also have freedom of religion, which can only be guaranteed by at least teaching them about other religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipIngram Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 So. Freedom of religion, but parents shouldn't be allowed to teach their children religion. Alright. Parents also shouldn't be allowed to teach their children lying is wrong, smoking is unhealthy, and that they should practice safe sex. All of those might lead to religious aspects. A good portion of kids have a healthy ratio of social media compared to their daily lives. But there's always the kids obsessed over it. But that's just gonna happen. Yes, and if alcohol were legal for children, then I imagine "a good portion of kids" would probably use it in a way that wasn't a problem. But of course some would not be so lucky. We made a decision about that - we could make it about social media too. I hope you weren't attaching the other parts of that reply to me - I hugely support the right of parents to raise their kids. Some parents will do that very well, and some parents will do it terribly. But it's the natural order of things. It beats the heck out of the government choosing it all. When a central authority enforces one set of ideas, and that set of ideas happens to turn out bad (which it will be at some point in time throughout time, even if it's good at some points too), there is no recovery mechanism. With a diverse, widely distributed set of ideas driven at the family level you get a free market of ideas - the things that work well will be selected over the things that don't. May take a few generations, but it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Yes, and if alcohol were legal for children, then I imagine "a good portion of kids" would probably use it in a way that wasn't a problem. But of course some would not be so lucky. We made a decision about that - we could make it about social media too. Well, looking at it from a unbiased view. Alcohol can seriously hinder and harm a child due to their body still developing, and it's very easy for it to harm their liver during development if they drink too much alcohol. While for the most part, when they're teens it won't be any where near as deadly, it's still more harmful to them then to adults. So there is an increased risk of problems, both physical and psychological for kids consuming alcohol. As for social media, the effects are dependent upon what they do on there, with minimal psychological impacts for a mentally stable teen. It also provides a way for them to remain in contact. Otherwise it'd be a web of simply texting and sending images. Unless you think texting should be banned too, because the same adverse effects can happen on there then I suggest banning social media until you reach a certain age would be a bad idea. If you did, you'd have to ban texting under the same context, or otherwise the entire point would be moot. On top of that, how do you stop kids from using social media? And what are the punishments? The majority of kids who use social media are fine. The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development. So the effects would not be the same. Limiting social media wouldn't be nearly as helpful as it would be detrimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 The majority of kids who use social media are fine. Are you sure about that? The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development. Any evidence for that? Both are damaging in excess, but the former is far more pernicious and may even appear fine, but no less damaging; addiction has many facades. So the effects would not be the same. Limiting social media wouldn't be nearly as helpful as it would be detrimental. Really... Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Are you sure about that? Assuming that you can observe outward social ability to connect it to being able to healthily use social media you can easily observe most teens around you and figure that they're fine. The cognitive health ability of teenagers generally graduating from high school from today, compared to 30 years ago when there was no social media would be a good indicator if social media has a severe impact correct? I suggest you look at that and tell me what you see. Perhaps you'll find a major difference I missed. Any evidence for that? Both are damaging in excess, but the former is far more pernicious and may even appear fine, but no less damaging; addiction has many facades. Yes. There is a lot of support evidence from the scientific community that alcohol can be extremely lethal at much smaller doses for children compared to adults. Other side effects include seizures, comas, and severe brain damage. Obviously, this is in excess. But an adult may be able to drink 20 to 30 times as much as a child before they would experience serious medical problems. So under the circumstances it is much easier to kill a child accidentally with alcohol, it's harder to do the same for an adult. http://www.poison.org/articles/2013-feb/alcohol-a-dangerous-poison-for-children This link provides more information. Now, as I pointed out before, this effect is much less by the time you're a teen. So what would kill a toddler might not kill a teen. I'm not saying alcohol is deadly to teens as much as it is to small children, but it is still deadlier to teens then it is to adults. The long term effects are also harder on teens then on adults. I think that's the evidence you wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Are you sure about that? Assuming that you can observe outward social ability to connect it to being able to healthily use social media you can easily observe most teens around you and figure that they're fine. So, no. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Really... Why? We're comparing the usage of social media to the consumption of alcohol. As pointed out previously, the consumption of alcohol can have severe adverse effects on a child's mental and physical state, while social media so far hasn't shown any significant difference between either(Also stated above, look it up if you want.). So banning alcohol prevents a lot of mental and physical problems in children that has already been scientifically registered and documented. But banning social media would be attempting to fix problems that have yet to be found. If there were problems with social media, then banning it would help fix those problems. But as of yet we haven't found any problems yet. So banning it, would not have the same effect as banning alcohol. Hopefully this explains it a bit more. So, no. Uh, no. The rest of the statement, which you decided to leave out, tells you to compare the mental state of teens in modern day culture, with social media, to the mental state of teens 30 years ago without social media. I couldn't find any significant difference, and unless you can, it'd be russels tea cup argument to have me try and prove there isn't a difference that we just can't see yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) We're comparing the usage of social media to the consumption of alcohol. As pointed out previously, the consumption of alcohol can have severe adverse effects on a child's mental and physical state, while social media so far hasn't shown any significant difference between either(Also stated above, look it up if you want.). So banning alcohol prevents a lot of mental and physical problems in children that has already been scientifically registered and documented. But banning social media would be attempting to fix problems that have yet to be found. If there were problems with social media, then banning it would help fix those problems. But as of yet we haven't found any problems yet. So banning it, would not have the same effect as banning alcohol. Hopefully this explains it a bit more. Uh, no. The rest of the statement, which you decided to leave out, tells you to compare the mental state of teens in modern day culture, with social media, to the mental state of teens 30 years ago without social media. I couldn't find any significant difference, and unless you can, it'd be russels tea cup argument to have me try and prove there isn't a difference that we just can't see yet. Evidence, please. Evidence, please. Cross posted, but still, I never suggested excessive alcohol intake is healthy. Edited May 17, 2017 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Evidence, please. Okay then..... I guess you don't want to look it up yourself.... https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/social-media-and-young-peoples-mental-health This link talks about the adverse effects of social media on today's generation. The majority of children though, do not experience these adverse effects. Therefore, the majority of children do not have a problem with social media. Do you disagree or should I start compiling a database? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Okay then..... I guess you don't want to look it up yourself.... Just a friendly tip for future reference when on this site, if you make the claim then you are expected to do the research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Just a friendly tip for future reference when on this site, if you make the claim then you are expected to do the research. Fair enough. But the evidence is there now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) Okay then..... I guess you don't want to look it up yourself.... https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/blog/social-media-and-young-peoples-mental-health This link talks about the adverse effects of social media on today's generation. The majority of children though, do not experience these adverse effects. Therefore, the majority of children do not have a problem with social media. Much like the majority in both cases, there is no problem. Edited May 17, 2017 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Much like the minority in both cases, there is no problem. I provided a lot of evidence pointing to the extremely adverse effects caused by drinking before the body is fully mature. Even in small doses. You yourself admitted it was un-healthy. There is a reason there is an age limit on drinking. I don't see why you're trying to argue there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I don't see why you're trying to argue there isn't. I'm not. I provided a lot of evidence pointing to the extremely adverse effects caused by drinking before the body is fully mature. Even in small doses. I must have missed that bit. There is a reason there is an age limit on drinking. I don't see why you're trying to argue there isn't. When did I do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 When did I do that? Much like the majority in both cases, there is no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 When did I do that? Much like the majority in both cases, there is no problem. Your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Your point? My point? You were clearly arguing that they were similar. I pointed out you were wrong, and then you claimed you were never arguing that. Then you asked me to point out where you were arguing that, and I did. Now you're asking why I pointed it out. I'll bet after this you're gonna ask "Your point?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 My point? You were clearly arguing that they were similar. Nope, I was arguing that excess in both cases is detrimental to people's health, whatever there age. The only similarity is addiction, do you think that's fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider5678 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) Nope, I was arguing that excess in both cases is detrimental to people's health, whatever there age. The only similarity is addiction, do you think that's fine? Then you shouldn't have even bothered to counter my argument. I specifically said that the majority of teens will be fine. BUT THERE WILL BE EXCEPTIONS. So you arguing against me proved nothing. I already said that there are exceptions. So unless you were arguing that the majority of teens do not use social media in a healthy way, then you should go back and adequately read my posts. Then you'll understand better. My argument stated: The majority of kids who use social media are fine. The majority of kids who use alcohol would seriously hurt their development. As you can see, I simply claimed the majority. Not in every case. And you argued against this why? I then provided evidence that using alcohol is unhealthy for children. Which you then asked me to provide evidence for. Edited May 17, 2017 by Raider5678 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts