Talk:Child abuse/Archive1

Please join in
Please join in, folks. Feel free to discuss on talk or rewrite as much as necessary. Duh. It's a Wiki. As if I'm worried people will treat my bon mots as the be-all and end-all on this topic! I just wanted to kick start it. human be in 21:19, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * This may be a wiki, but unauthorized edits will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of my imagination the law. Godspeed.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 21:21, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Go dsp'd yourself, you anti-school prayer doctor of all things abominable! But anyway, Mrs. Lincoln, besides that, how was the play? human be in 21:33, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

scenes of adult violence
The other day, we finished watching America's funniest videos on our DVR, and after I deleted it, was launched back to live television, and confronted with a graphic murder scene, in high definition, from a program called CSI. My goodness, it turned my and my wife's stomach. What is this world coming to, anyway? But the liberals love to defend this pornography as a freedom of speech issue, never mind that my young children briefly saw a realistic murder scene. (Yes, I have since enabled the password feature of my DVR to prevent such mishaps from occuring again, but really, why is this filth being broadcast over the public airwaves?)

Fortunately, they did not look long enough to even ask questions about it later, and I had previously warned my son in anticipation of future exposure to violence on television that blood on television is really just a substance akin to thinned ketchup, and that almost everything on television is scripted and enacted. I never imagined that my children would be exposed to this filth so quickly.

I think they only saw a close-up of an arm in a pool of blood before they turned at my and my wife's hysterical demands that they turn their heads. I did not discuss it with them because they were more interested in going to get some watermelon.

You could argue that I should have had my password set up earlier, but I did not imaging this scenerio. We don't watch much television, and my children do not turn on the television (I do). Well, lesson learned. Heart ♥  Gold tx 23:22, 13 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Psssst..."pornography" is, by definition, overt sexual content, and violence is not all sex.--AutoFire 23:28, 13 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I may have misused it slightly, but I don't think so. In my defense, I just looked it up, and my dictionary (MW 11th collegiate) has this as its third definition:

3: the depicton of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction 


 * Hope this is a suitable defense. Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:33, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * So, reading what you just wrote, you are agreeing with the line in the article, right? And as a responsible parent, you do shield your kids from such depictions as best you can.  While I meant "real" violence (like parents fighting), your example fits the concept just as well.  And that is why we have liberal V chips and parental controls on channel selectors - some "entertainment" that is suitable for "consenting" adults should never be consumed by children, especially without adult oversight and explanations. (btw, I don't agree with the V chip, although I probably own one).  Personally, I prefer sex to violence. human be in 15:05, 14 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I think so, but I do disagree with your idea that parents should shield their children from the marital arguments. In some cases yes, but it is very important for children, in my humble opinion, to not only witness the arguments, but how they are handled, and how resolution is sometimes delayed, lest the children grow up thinking their own marital life will be better than Ozzie and Harriet, or, after the children are married, that their marriage is somehow not normal.  Children can learn lessons simply by being exposed to *real* marital disputes.  Of course, I am not talking about disputes that include battery, gratuitious vulgar language, and the like.  Do you have children?  You should give "focus on the family" a listen sometime, if you haven't already.     23:32, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That's why I used the word "violence", not "disagreement". Not sure where or when I said "that parents should shield their children from the marital arguments", I agree that children need to understand how people resolve disputes (ideally, of course, without yelling or hitting).  human be in 14:03, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * One man's disagreement is another man's violence. I have seen couples who wrestle (too roughly) for my taste, but in a strange and constrained way.  I would shield my own children from that, but I honestly cannot say that I feel the right to insist that their children are sheilded from that.   14:05, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Counter-revolutionary in the house....
Oppps, just wanted to sign my contribution to the talk page. Some of these "abuse" classifications fall into the realm of hindering freedom, and would be quite scary if made official (in terms of law, not RW). Heart ♥  Gold tx 09:32, 14 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Hiya HG, I noted your hidden comments - thanks for noticing that the way I wrote this originally, it was ideology neutral. Also, I never put in the opening line I was thinking of - that CA is a way for liberal fascists to interfere in parent's freedom to raise their children however they please. I made italicized comments in your table above, btw. human be in 14:00, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Love the article Human RojerB 14:07, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks! I hope it gets even better! human be in 16:15, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

slight edit
Bob M, you added "eternally" to this "Frightening children by telling them they will be punished eternally by a supernatural being if they don't follow certain rules." Is that strictly necessary? It makes it more specific to one group of religious beliefs, instead of any at all, including boogey-men or Santa Claus.

How about, "Frightening children by telling them they will be punished or rewarded by a supernatural being according to a set of arbitrary rules"?

Hmmm, at that point, maybe another separate line: "Confusing children by punishing or rewarding them according to a set of inconsistent or changing rules"?
 * Sorry, that was me, on 7/14 I think human be in 13:37, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, it is specific to one particular way of abusing children. But if you feel the need to add others then please go ahead. Your second one looks possible, not too sure about your final one though.--Bob_M (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I am not sure who wrote that, but they might have some issues with their parents. Inconsistent and changing rules...they happen.  Especially from the child's perspective.  I tell my son he can talk with me when he thinks something is not fair (he is more into fairness than his sister), and that I will try to explain, but that he won't always understand what is and is not fair.  He does not.  And sometimes, your not as strict as other times.  This whole thing about child abuse is getting silly.  Singing "He knows if you've been naughty, he knows if you've been nice" is child abuse?  I better go turn my mother in.   20:57, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Child abuse in China and Germany during the communist and cultural revolution, and during the Holocust
Father: "When the authorities come, do not tell them about our family history." Child: "Why" Father: "They will kill us." Child: "This is abuse.  You're trying to frieghten me, and you're trying to get me to lie.  I am calling Human at the Department of Child Protection."

Okay, this is extreme, but the definitions of abuse that include lieing and scaring are just too vague. 23:35, 14 July 2007 (CDT)