Author Topic: no minimum age  (Read 2345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

no minimum age
« on: January 03, 2010, 04:24:26 AM »
You firmly state with all confidence a claim that you yourselves prove incorrect 
I’m not so sure children are bad by their nature. Some become bad when they grow up, and even that is not their fault. The minute they leave of the womb they absorb speciesist and aggressive messages in every aspect of life from a society that takes those two for granted. No wonder that it’s so hard to recontemplate these perceptions in later stages of life. But on the other hand it is possible - for a fact. Me and every vegan and even the O.O.S. members were raised in a speciesist society and managed to question the common consent and form an alternative perspective.
There should be a minimum age for expectations of children to make decisions based on moral and empathy as they are not yet able to differentiate between right and wrong. They don’t choose to do wrong, they don’t comprehend so it’s irrelevant and very unfair to make such heavy accusations against them. Once they grow up it will be much more relevant.

Re: no minimum age
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2010, 07:41:47 AM »
Personally I don’t think children and adults are all bad but they are further from being good from what I’ve seen so far…
I know very little about psych theories but I don’t think any professional would dispute that humans are aggressive beings at a certain degree, but I’d avoid going any deeper into this field. Besides, I don’t think it’s necessary
"Some become bad when they grow up, and even that is not their fault."
I don’t think it’s a matter of fault, just cause and effect, just the same as you’d impound a mentally disabled person loose with a gun on the streets – not as a punishment as he’s unaware of the consequences of his actions, but to protect anyone in harm’s way.
Just like those at the receiving end don’t inquire about the motives for the unjust behavior against them, I don’t care about it either. If you take one thing from all of this it’s that it must not be about serving justice, rewording or punishing- it must be about acknowledging that whatever the reason -if the end result is someone getting hurt then you must prevent it whenever you can.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: no minimum age
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2010, 08:47:36 AM »
First of all we are not into accusations and dividing the world to good and bad. We don’t see the point in doing so. Whether it is children’s fault or the world’s fault or nobody’s fault since that’s the way they were born, in all cases it is the same reality for the sufferers. We shouldn’t look for the guilty but for solutions. Even if children are born pure and innocents it appears that humans are failing to keep them that way and they become horrible grownups under our noses.

If children are born innocent but they learn that power, intimidation and aggressiveness will gain them with what they want, then what does it say about the world? And what does it say about you defending this kind of a world?

You think children are not to blame for harms because they haven’t yet developed a full moral system and can’t yet identify with someone else’s interests. Even if I agree with the assumption that in later stages of life they will develop ethical perspective based on empathy and care, I am asking why should other creatures suffer until they will. This is pure speciesism! Humans are the stars of the show, the masters of the universe and as such the world and all its creatures are their giant playfield in the first stages of the masters’ lives. What’s a few frogs’ pain in comparison to the social status development of a child impressing his friends? What is ants’ suffering being burned alive for the sake of the curiosity fulfillment of the child’s scientific soul? What are a few snails when the child needs to unload anger and frustration after he didn’t get a new toy?

It is very innocent to say that children are innocent and it is only the fucked up world that ruins them. Don’t you think there should be certain elements in the children’s character that are ready to absorb all the horrible things the world infuses them? If they were so innocent it wasn’t so easy to implant such non-innocent ideas into their head. Why don’t they reject violence and viciousness? Why don’t they drive the world’s evil agents, trying to influence them to do all the bad things children are so good at, away? If children are so innocent how come they are so "excellent" at mocking other kids? And where did all these evil grownups come from if all the children are born good and innocent?

Children are not as innocent as you claim. Unfortunately and by no doubt they are also miserable victims of this horrible world as we showed in the article To Their Own Flesh And Blood but they are definitely not innocent.  
There are studies about violence in much earlier ages than we showed in the slideshow - In the discussion about you were always on mind in this forum Eternal salvation mentioned that A few studies found that humans are in their violent peak at the ages of 2 to 5.
Just a few examples:

And allow me to also quote from our article “the wrong gender”:
The genetic factor and not their intended role in society, is what leads children to pick “gender toys”. Again and again kindergarten children (even first timers who still don’t have favorite toys) pick their toys on a gender base, even when all kinds of toys are given to them. Furthermore, when girls get trucks and soldiers and boys get dolls and kitchenware, they are quickly bored and anxious to substitute to their natural toys. Boys play with guns, planes and other violent toys, they engage in “contact sports” that glorify violence and the ability to overcome the other team…” You interpret children early violence urges as pre distinguishing between right and wrong, but even if the 5 years old child can’t yet distinguish between right and wrong and that can be an explanation to why he won’t recognize throwing stones on a cat as a bad thing because he can’t yet relate to the cat, because he can’t understand the cat’s distress and fear. But the question why the hell a 5 years old child wants to hurt a cat in the first place is not being asked?!
The answer, if you are willing to stop automatically defend your species and start examining reality for what it really is, is that humans are violent creatures. Children want to hurt and it’s got nothing to do with the ethical maturity. Of course when they do understand that when they throw a stone at a cat he is distressed and if the stone hits the cat (and they do everything they can to succeed) the cat might get hurt, many stop but many others continue to torture cats in much later ages and most torture animals on a daily basis until the day they die. Society can only dim the violent urges, it can’t suppress them and it doesn’t try. On the contrary it enables humans to unload these urges by permitting some violence usually on the weaker members of society which are always first of all and most of all animals.

Whether young or old, imprinted in the genes or acquired, intentional or not, knowingly or not – humans trample anything and anyone in their path (and all paths are theirs) and that has to be stopped.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 03:25:06 AM by O.O.S »


TinyPortal © 2005-2015