• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Little white lies to children

Status
Not open for further replies.

_ToAsT_

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Under Your Bed
Hello all. I know its been a while since, I've posted on here due to work, but I finally get to take a vacation due to it being the holidays. Somethings been pondering me ever sense my friend mentioned adopting a child when he gets older and the plans he had in store for him/her. From what he told me, it made wonder; have you ever thought about all the things parents told you when you were young?

Like for example the Easter Bunny, "Where babies come from", Santa, the Tooth Fairy etc. Well it got me wondering... is it okay to tell children "little white lies" growing up and letting them learn the truth of the matter on their own later, or should you be honest with a child from the beginning? I know there are Pros and Cons to both of them.

Some Pros include:
Children get to feel magic is real, thus broadening their imagination. (It did wonders for Walt Disney,) they have something to really look forward to as a child, and it can help keep them innocent before they learn the real truths about the world.

Some Cons include:
When they do learn the truth, some children feel devastated that they were lied to by their own parents which can lead to withdrawal towards the parent and or adults in general, they can then start to doubt what is and isn't true which can lead to "trust no one" (even if its subconsciously,) and other things that are similar to that nature.

I don't think I will ever have children, but for the rare event that I do, I don't know if I could teach them to believe in such things. I mean when you get down to it, isn't it a lie that you're telling? I myself see it on a scale as the government being the parent, and the citizens being the children. They lie to us constantly for reasons that can be considered similar to those as parents to their children
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
I think there is a distinction between telling children about Santa Claus and telling children white lies. White lies to me would be like "no you can't go to the zoo, it is closed today" (even though it isn't really closed). I think those are bad. But telling children about Santa Claus isn't really lying to them, especially if you eventually explain that it is metaphorical. Now, if you tell them that Santa is 100% real, that's different.
 

_ToAsT_

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Under Your Bed
I think there is a distinction between telling children about Santa Claus and telling children white lies. White lies to me would be like "no you can't go to the zoo, it is closed today" (even though it isn't really closed). I think those are bad. But telling children about Santa Claus isn't really lying to them, especially if you eventually explain that it is metaphorical. Now, if you tell them that Santa is 100% real, that's different.
I can understand where you're coming from, but there isn't anything metaphorical about Santa. I mean true there was a person named Saint Nicholas, however, the stories parents tell children are generally as people say "little white lies." He leaves you presents, he lives in the N. Pole etc. None of those parts are real, the stories can't be considered metaphorical, and therefore, its what's classified as a white lie. So with that stated, do you believe telling a white lie is bad, or is it okay as long as you're making a child happy?
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
I don't believe in lying to people in general, but that's based on a consequential view that generally telling lies leads to worse outcomes. If telling a lie will truly increase happiness then I would do it.

I read an interesting article about someone who NEVER lies. It was funny how much we do tell those little lies, and I think that in the long run there's a big advantage to being known as an honest person. At least, after reading the article I've tried to make a conscious effort to be more truthful in general, although I still take the easy way out and lie about some things.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
On the one hand, I know my life would have been a lot better if I had lied about ... well most things actually. Telling the truth has cost me thousands of dollars and gotten me kicked out of campus housing.

I think in general, it's like a game theory thing where telling the truth is the dominated strategy. I think if we all stopped lying to each other, society would be better off, but since everyone else is lying, you should lie too so you don't get completely screwed over.

Since you know how much your kids are lying to you, I think it's appropriate to lie to them just as much, to reward/punish their trustworthiness. I also think the kid would be better off if you never lied to them, because in the long run, I think knowing truth is its own reward, and things like the Santa myth only provide temporary happiness until they are taken for granted, and then an equal amount of misery follows when they're let down. Telling 'little-white-lies' to a kid is a happiness loan, sort of like getting them jacked up on booze.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
1048576,

Yes, if I did something that would have a huge negative impact on my life if it were found out, I would probably lie about it.

I was referring to more generic situations in interpersonal relationships. The idea is that if you always tell the truth you might offend people at first but eventually they will appreciate your honesty.
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
An indefinitely long prisoners-dilemma style game needs to be analyzed on the probability of the game ending after a given round and the value associated with each play, so in response to your claim I would say ... maybe.

If I lie and you tell the truth I win much and you lose much
If I lie and you lie we both lose
If I tell the truth and you tell the truth we both win

That's how I see it.
 

_ToAsT_

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Under Your Bed
Since you know how much your kids are lying to you, I think it's appropriate to lie to them just as much, to reward/punish their trustworthiness.
For the most part, children aren't really old enough to lie to you about things, and I can't see them being children and lying to a parent a good enough reason to lie to them back. Children are usually around 2-4 when they first hear about most of the"little white lies" parents tell to there children (Ex: Easter Rabbit, the Stork, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, bogeyman Santa, etc) And aren't the parents suppose to be the ones in charge and the ones to set the example? What kind of example would it be for a parent to play "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?

I think if we all stopped lying to each other, society would be better off, but since everyone else is lying, you should lie too so you don't get completely screwed over.
Now that part I can agree with you on. I believe that society is the reason people believe its acceptable to lie to children. They make it out to be as its nothing to tell a story. In fact, society even promotes it with commercials and making parents feel that they're taking away a child's joy by not lying to them about certain things. In my opinion, its really sad when you think about it.

An indefinitely long prisoners-dilemma style game needs to be analyzed on the probability of the game ending after a given round and the value associated with each play, so in response to your claim I would say ... maybe.

If I lie and you tell the truth I win much and you lose much
If I lie and you lie we both lose
If I tell the truth and you tell the truth we both win

That's how I see it.
Now everyone has his/her own perspective on things, but I can't see that as the case always. Once someone is lying on someone, and gets caught doing it, they get in trouble for the most part. It happened with my mom and my mom's co-worker a few days ago. The co-worker lied on my mom, and my mom was honest. They caught the co-worker in the lies, and shes no longer working there.

Now if two people lie, for the most part, both people lose, but there are a lot of factors that have to be added into that equation. Such as how big was one person's lie compared to the other, did one person lie and correct the lie right after, does one person have more credibility than the other person lying, and the list can go on forever almost. I guess it really matters on what you mean by "lose"

Both people telling the true, for the most part, wins. Rare cases have I seen two people tell the truth and still lose unless there's another person in that equation or something else to factor in.
 

July

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
142
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Like for example the Easter Bunny, "Where babies come from", Santa, the Tooth Fairy etc. Well it got me wondering... is it okay to tell children "little white lies" growing up and letting them learn the truth of the matter on their own later, or should you be honest with a child from the beginning? I know there are Pros and Cons to both of them.

Some Pros include:
Children get to feel magic is real, thus broadening their imagination. (It did wonders for Walt Disney,) they have something to really look forward to as a child, and it can help keep them innocent before they learn the real truths about the world.

Some Cons include:
When they do learn the truth, some children feel devastated that they were lied to by their own parents which can lead to withdrawal towards the parent and or adults in general, they can then start to doubt what is and isn't true which can lead to "trust no one" (even if its subconsciously,) and other things that are similar to that nature.
I think its a fine balance when you consider things like "little white lies" told by parents. If the lie is in response to something like, "where do babies come from?", the answer to that is way beyond the realm of what children can know or understand. "Little white lies" are a way of avoiding the question directly for a while, until the questions become a matter of serious interest and not just childlike curiosity.

As for lies such as the Easter Bunny and Santa, well...its hard to break those now because they have become part of our cultural, and like you said they do foster creativity. Furthermore, the continuation of these lies may be in part because you don't want your child to be the one who devastates all the other children and their dreams of Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc. It then transcends the realm of just how you raise your child and raises issues of how other people raise their children: Is it okay if your child tells all of them what they believe is a lie? Also, what effects will that have on your child? Will the other kids resent him or her, will he be willing to partake in activities with other children if they involve such imaginary cultural icons? I think this is where parents get complicated in deviating from the norm: they don't want their child to be "different", so they follow the pattern of little white lies we are used to as a society.

However, I do think this type of lying can be done in a way that isn't as harmful or devastating as it could be: parents should NOT just let children learn "the truth of the matter" on their own. Parents should be astute and when they see their kids start doubting Santa, start questioning the stork/baby excuse, that is when they need to drop the little white lies and come clean. They'll obviously still be devastated in one way or another, but its so much better that they learn from their parents than on their own.
 

Savon

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
730
Location
New Orleans
Lying is a basic aspect of what it is to be human. Deceit is something that will always exist, regardless of what type of society you live in. While generally telling the truth is a good thing, lying still has its place in society. Sometimes telling lies is better for a person than telling the truth. The little white lies such as Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or not a big deal simply because these can be easily deduced to be false once a child reaches a certain age. Lying to spare another persons feelings may also be a situation in which lying would be morally acceptable, although this is very situational

For example, lets say that I had a brother who died and my parents wanted me to speak about my relationship with him at the funeral. The truth might be that I hated my brother and that I am happy he is dead, but for that specific situation couldn't we all agree that lying might be the better decision? The truth does not always result in positive result. Lying is a ok, but you have know when not to lie.

Lying is problematic when it comes to issues such as having a child who was adopted and not telling them, or telling a girlfriend/boyfriend that you have not cheated on them. Lying is all about tact.
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
Lying is bad.
When you lie, you deprive a person of reality, of truth.
Lying can create a wonderful fantasy for a person, but euphoria is not a good excuse to lie.

Why are you guys are cherry picking when it is okay to lie?
 

Savon

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
730
Location
New Orleans
Because the truth is not always a good thing. Imagine going through just a single day of work/school being 100% honest with people. If I spent a single week being 100% honest with people because I did not want to lie, I can assure you I would end up banned before it was all over. Lying is situational.
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
If you stopped lying now, all that stuff would happen. I can agree with that much.
But if you continued down a path where you refused to lie, you would end up finding a different way to live.
A way where you don't have to lie to keep the status quo, because you will have created a new status quo for yourself.

Our society is built on deceptions.
If those deceptions were stopped, the society that stands would fall, but a new one would rise. A better one.
 

Claire Diviner

President
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
7,476
Location
Indian Orchard, MA
NNID
ClaireDiviner
If you stopped lying now, all that stuff would happen. I can agree with that much.
But if you continued down a path where you refused to lie, you would end up finding a different way to live.
A way where you don't have to lie to keep the status quo, because you will have created a new status quo for yourself.

Our society is built on deceptions.
If those deceptions were stopped, the society that stands would fall, but a new one would rise. A better one.
You can't just assume that having a world without lies of any kind will be a better one. Ever hear the saying "the truth hurts"? Sometimes telling the truth, as noble as it may seem, can be harmful to the recipient of the truth and may even change them for the worse, depending on what was said. Also, keep in mind here that this thread is about "little white lies", not something extreme, such as a nation leader's manipulation of the people to get what he/she wants or things of that magnitude, so let's stick with the small ones, like babies coming from the stork.
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
Okay then, little white lies.
Could you explain your view on babies coming from the stork and why this is beneficial to the recipient.
what is the point of it?
 

Savon

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
730
Location
New Orleans
Because children at such an age are not mentally prepared for such mature concepts and ideas. Knowledge is not always power. It is the same reason some parents do not totally explain the concept of death to their kids. They are not mentally mature enough to handle the info, nonetheless as children they will still have a multitude of questions. Most children figure out the truth on their own as they age, but they generally understand why their parents told those white lies in the first place.
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
Because children at such an age are not mentally prepared for such mature concepts and ideas. Knowledge is not always power. It is the same reason some parents do not totally explain the concept of death to their kids.
A few questions first.
1. What makes a person "mentally mature", and is age directly correlated?

Most children figure out the truth on their own as they age, but they generally understand why their parents told those white lies in the first place.
2. Why did they lie?
I'm not asking why they didn't explain the details of intercourse or death, but why a complete lie (the stork story) was told.
 

MacNCheese.

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
698
Location
Home.
A few questions first.
2. Why did they lie?
I'm not asking why they didn't explain the details of intercourse or death, but why a complete lie (the stork story) was told.
As someone has already mentioned(Sorry I can't remember), they are not mentally matuer enough. Imagine you were a kid, and your says," Everybody dies one day" or something along those lines, how would you feel? How would you handle it? When we are that young, we can't really fully comprehend it, so our parents wait.
[collapse=Article about maturing brains]
Exactly how mental maturity develops—and the anatomy responsible for its emergence—is being revealed
By about the age of six, the human brain is as big as it is ever going to be. That may surprise most grown-ups, who notice that children do not display the mental agility of adults (even though many fancy their own little angels are geniuses). Children can remember facts but are less good at recalling the context in which those facts are relevant. And they are easily swayed from long-term goals. Even when youngsters try their hardest they cannot wait 15 minutes for two biscuits if they can scoff one now instead.

But as people grow, their brains change. Before full volume is attained, the pruning starts. Grey matter gets picked away at different rates in different parts of the organ. Brain cells form white matter as their arms become covered in fatty sheaths that, like the plastic insulation around a metal wire, stop electrical signals leaking out as they zip along the nerve cells. As the grey matter diminishes, the white matter steadily increases. Which is why the brain can mature from an organ of overwhelmingly short-range connections into one with many long-distance links, as Bradley Schlaggar and his colleagues at Washington University, in St Louis, have found.

Dr Schlaggar likes to create diagrams of brain function using a technique called graph theory that is used, among other things, to analyse demand on power grids and the structure of the Internet. He asks volunteers to lie in brain scanners and to think about whatever they wish. Then he tries to identify which parts of the brain are simultaneously active—or almost so. Where activity exceeds certain statistical thresholds, he plots a line between those bits of the brain on his diagrams.
Networking skills
This approach has led Dr Schlaggar to suggest why it is that adults can better resist impulses that derail long-term goals in children. His work is based on an idea by his colleague Steven Petersen, who recently developed the hypothesis that two networks, rather than two areas of the brain (as the mainstream theory has it), keep the adult mind concentrated on long-term achievement.

Dr Petersen and his colleagues identified 39 regions of the brain that were active when university students applied themselves to ten different tasks, each with varying levels of surprise built in. Whether the students were listening to repetitive sounds and trying to predict when the next tone would come, or pushing the correct button if pairs of words were matched or mismatched in their meanings, some consistent synchronisation emerged. Seven of the 39 regions looked busy when the brain was pursuing a successful strategy and maintaining a consistent effort. Eleven other parts chipped in when that strategy slipped up and some innovation was needed for the student to complete the task. Dr Petersen postulated that the first seven regions form one network, which he calls the “cingulo-opercular network”, and the second 11 form another, the “frontoparietal network”.

Dr Schlaggar next wondered how the connections within these two networks might develop. So he turned to a second group, made up of children and teenagers, and asked them to think about whatever they liked while he scanned the blood flow inside the same 39 regions of their brains and calculated which parts were acting in unison.

What he found came as a shock. In the 49 children, aged seven to nine, the two networks were always bound into a single web; in the 43 adolescents, some of those connections had been undone; and in his 47 adult volunteers, aged over 21, the brain regions fired as two distinct networks. Moreover, the web of activity inside the children’s heads depicted the cingulo-opercular (sustaining) network as being clamped inside the frontoparietal (rapidly adapting) one, suggesting why it is that youngsters grab one biscuit now rather than wait for two later. Both studies were published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

But why are children no good at recalling the context in which they learn facts when they retain those facts fairly well? This question was fodder for an experiment by Noa Ofen, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and her colleagues, described in this week’s online edition of Nature Neuroscience. Like Dr Schlaggar, Dr Ofen measured the blood flow in the brains of young people, this time aged eight to 24. Rather than letting their minds wander, though, she asked her volunteers to try to remember photographs of 250 scenes. Some were of kitchens or halls, others showed landscapes from her holidays in America and Israel.

When they came out of the scanner, Dr Ofen then tested her volunteers on how well they could recall the pictures. Mixing those images with photographs that they had not previously seen, she asked whether each one was new or familiar and, if the latter, whether the volunteers could remember something about the context in which it had appeared. Age, she found, did not help people recognise her snaps correctly. However, it did steadily enrich the details they could add about the experience of forming the memory.

The scans enabled Dr Ofen to link her findings to brain development. She noticed that, for all her volunteers, a part of the brain involved in forming memories—the medial temporal lobe—was flushed with blood whenever an image appeared in the scanner. A second region called the lateral prefrontal cortex was also active in her older volunteers, and was most active in those aged over 18 during the formation of those memories whose context they best recalled. She thus suspects that this could help to explain how fuller-bodied memories form as people grow old.

And to link her findings with the pruning of grey matter and the augmentation of white, Dr Ofen counted pixels of the two types of matter in two particularly important parts of that brain region. Richer recollections indeed came with the whitening of older age.[/collapse]
For example, lets say that I had a brother who died and my parents wanted me to speak about my relationship with him at the funeral. The truth might be that I hated my brother and that I am happy he is dead, but for that specific situation couldn't we all agree that lying might be the better decision? The truth does not always result in positive result. Lying is a ok, but you have know when not to lie.
I strongly agree, we simply know the appropriate times to lie, for the good, or maybe so, the bad. Nice Job.

Resources: http://pragmasynesi.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/looking-for-maturity-in-the-brain/
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
This is what I hear from most.
-The minds of adult's and children are different, one is younger and the other older. One has seen more.
it is implying that most adults with their adult brains make the right choice when dealing with the concepts that are "too mature" for children.
Why is an idea too complex. too mature?
-Kids can't handle the truth.

alright anyways, it was about little white lies.
little white lies imply that the lie is little, and of little significance.
Death, sex, violence, are not little things.
So why is it ok to lie about them?
mental maturity?

Little white lies about santa and such
How does that make a child creative?
You are showing them a story and telling them it is real. You could even tell them it is just a story.
The Santa story, whether a child thinks it is real or not, is like hijacking the child's imagination.
If you want to let a kid be creative, ask him questions, ask him to make up stories.
Like instead of telling them about santa, ask them to make up a character they would love.
.......
 

MacNCheese.

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
698
Location
Home.
The Santa story, whether a child thinks it is real or not, is like hijacking the child's imagination.
If you want to let a kid be creative, ask him questions, ask him to make up stories.
Like instead of telling them about santa, ask them to make up a character they would love.
.......
Santa is a myth that feeds OFF a childs imagination. See what I'm saying? It's also a myth to get children to behave better... I think that's the reason.

Now to back me up:

[collapse=History of Santa Claus]
http://www.geocities.com/~perkinshome/history.html
Santa Claus , legendary bringer of gifts at Christmas . He is generally depicted as a fat, jolly man with a white beard, dressed in a red suit trimmed with white, and driving a sleigh full of toys drawn through the air by eight reindeer. Santa (also called Saint Nicholas and Saint Nick) is said to visit on Christmas Eve, entering houses through the chimney to leave presents under the Christmas tree and in the stockings of all good children. Although this familiar image of Santa Claus is a North American invention of the 19th century, it has ancient European roots and continues to influence the celebration of Christmas throughout the world.

Origins of the Legend ,The historical Saint Nicholas was venerated in early Christian legend for saving storm-tossed sailors, defending young children, and giving generous gifts to the poor. Although many of the stories about Saint Nicholas are of doubtful authenticity (for example, he is said to have delivered a bag of gold to a poor family by tossing it through a window), his legend spread throughout Europe, emphasizing his role as a traditional bringer of gifts. The Christian figure of Saint Nicholas replaced or incorporated various pagan gift-giving figures such as the Roman Befana and the Germanic Berchta and Knecht Ruprecht. The saint was called Sankt Nikolaus in Germany and Sanct Herr Nicholaas or Sinter Klaas in Holland.
In these countries Nicholas was sometimes said to ride through the sky on a horse. He was depicted wearing a bishop's robes and was said to be accompanied at times by Black Peter, an elf whose job was to whip the naughty children.}The feast day of Nicholas, when presents were received, was traditionally observed on December 6. After the Reformation, German Protestants encouraged veneration of the (Christ child) as a gift giver on his own feast day, December 25. When the Nicholas tradition prevailed, it became attached to Christmas itself. Because the saint's life is so unreliably documented, Pope Paul VI ordered the feast of Saint Nicholas dropped from the official Roman Catholic calendar in 1969. The term Christkindl evolved to Kriss Kringle, another nickname for Santa Claus. Various other European Christmas gift givers were more or less similar to Saint Nicholas: in France, Julenisse in Scandinavia, and Father Christmas
American Origins-The American version of the Santa Claus figure received its inspiration and its name from the Dutch legend of Sinter Klaas, brought by settlers to New York in the 17th century. As early as 1773 the name appeared in the American press as St. A Claus, but it was the popular author Washington Irving who gave Americans their first detailed information about the Dutch version of Saint Nicholas. In his History of New York, published in 1809 under the pseudonym Diedrich Knickerbocker, Irving described the arrival of the saint on horseback (unaccompanied by Black Peter) each Eve of Saint Nicholas. This Dutch-American Saint Nick achieved his fully Americanized form in 1823 in the poem A Visit From Saint Nicholasmore commonly known as The Night Before Christmas by writer Clement Clarke Moore . Moore included such details as the names of the reindeer; Santa Claus's laughs, winks, and nods; and the method by which Saint Nicholas, referred to as an elf, returns up the chimney. (Moore's phrase lays his finger aside of his nose was drawn directly from Irving's 1809 description.)
Modern InfluencesThe fully detailed modern image of Santa Claus plays a part in Christmas celebrations around the world. People are reminded of Santa Claus through advertising, greeting cards, decorations, and the annual appearance of Santas in department stores and shopping malls (in some cases accompanied by Mrs. Claus and Santa's elves). The figure of Santa Claus occurs in motion pictures for example, Miracle on 34th Street 1947) and in songs such as Santa Claus Is Coming to Town, 1932) and Here Comes Santa Claus, 1947). Children write letters to Santa Claus and set out milk and cookies on Christmas Eve as a snack for Santa.

Although most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving, some argue that the modern image of Santa Claus conflicts with the true meaning of Christmas and promotes greed and commercialism. To reconcile the legend of Santa Claus with the religious significance of Christmas, some Christians emphasize that the modern figure is derived from legends about a saint who symbolized love, caring, and generosity. "Santa Claus," Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.[/collapse]
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
main thoughts bolded/colored/underlined

Honestly, if the benefits of the lie is gonna outweigh the harms for the person who is being lied to, then I say go for it.

"Tommy, be a good boy so Santa can give you lots of presents!"
is something I'm okay with, because the child learns to behave better; something that he's gonna need to learn to do for the best outcome in social situations.

"Tommy, the zoo is closed today. We cannot go."
is only going to disenchant the child, let his hopes down about going to the zoo, only to get him off of your back about going in the first place.

If the beneficiary of the lie truly benefits from it, I think its justified to lie as a parent because although lying is unethical in general, only good can come out of it in a situation like this, which means its justified for me. But if the child doesn't then I don't think its right at all, because he or she won't get anything useful out of it, and all you'll end up doing more harm than good, if any.

I think another reason why parents might tell little white lies is that they don't want to be the person who breaks the kid the news that the world can be a bad and scary place.
A hypothetical example:
Tommy's fish died. Tommy is looking at the tank with the dead fish. Tommy asks his mommy why the fish on its back not moving like it's getting a tan or something.

The mommy has two general choices:

Option A: "Don't worry Tommy, your fish is just sleeping on its back."

The parent doesn't want to break the kid the bad news that the fish is dead. Death is a concept that is terrifying to any child and would provoke difficult questions and scare the child, which is something that no parent want to do.

Option B: "Tommy, your fish died. That's what happens to life. It dies."

That is the sad truth that's gonna cause the kid to ask some difficult questions that are going to need to be answered in similar fashions as the answers above.
I think parents lie to protect the kid from something that they might not be able to handle.

I had a fish that lived for 7 years. It was the smallest little fish in the world and once every couple of months it would decide to get a tan and roll over for a while. The next day, it was just fine.
When I was 3, I probably could not handle the death of my fish because I would get scared about friends, family, and myself dying. But when I turned 5 I grasped this concept and caught on to the fact that my fish was being replaced again and again and again. But I was glad that I was introduced to the concept of death on my own, and not by my mother who is probably glad of the same thing.

Parents lie to protect a fragile youth who can't struggle with the difficult concepts of life adequately, to benefit them in some way, or simply to get the kid off their back.
The last one is unethical. But the first two I think are fine.

Unless you are lying to somehow benefit the person that you are lying to, lying is not justified.
That's how I see it.
Sorry if thats an eyesore.
 

3mmanu3lrc

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,715
Location
D.R.
I think a white lie would be as bad as a real lie if said to a child.
The child's mind keep everything they hear and see, telling a "White Lie" to a child is gonna cause that child to believe it who knows for how long, which is gonna make that child grow up with a wrong idea of something in his mind and may lead him even to a psychological problem when hi finds out the true, if he's not emotionally strong enough.
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
People lie to kids because kids will ask questions that the people don't want to think about.
The johns (excuses) about why they lie to kids is because it is good for the kid.

1. "Tommy, be a good boy so Santa can give you lots of presents!"
This only shows that people don't have a reason good enough to convince a kid to be good.
Instead they bribe the kid with a reward (presents!).
It is like saying
"Do this, get that"
There is no reasoning behind it. Never was it asked why or any of the other w's.
By lying to kids like this, you are leading them on a path of minimal thought and reasoning. NO LOGIC

Why be good, who benefits, when should i be good, are you good, is mom good, is that good, is this good.
How would you answer these. Could you? Have you answered them yourself? Are your answers the right answers? Are your answers only for adults? why not for kids.
blah blah blah

You can't say **** like, every child would be terrified of death. As a child the idea was very simple to me and not scary at all. People are born, live, and die.
Kids aren't scared of death, they can't be because we don't "know" what death is. What they would fear is losing their loved ones, or going to hell if they've been taught to do so. Or maybe they'll make up things
to explain what is on the other side.

What else can I say?
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
People lie to kids because kids will ask questions that the people don't want to think about.
The johns (excuses) about why they lie to kids is because it is good for the kid.

1. "Tommy, be a good boy so Santa can give you lots of presents!"
This only shows that people don't have a reason good enough to convince a kid to be good.
Instead they bribe the kid with a reward (presents!).
It is like saying
"Do this, get that"
There is no reasoning behind it. Never was it asked why or any of the other w's.

By lying to kids like this, you are leading them on a path of minimal thought and reasoning. NO LOGIC

The thing is, it works. If you tell a child that you need to be a good kid because people won't like you otherwise then I doubt it would have as strong of an effect than telling them that they would get presents.
If I ever believed in Santa, I'm sure I'd be content with it. I was told that I should be good just for being good in hell that I'd be a good child for a reason like that.
Being rewarded for being good, is the reason at that age.
Later on when the child has matured, it becomes and expected thing.
To the parents the logic of doing so is probably that it works. Lets keep it going that way so that they stay on their good behavior (because that is what I want them to do) until they find out about the bull that Santa really is. From where I'm standing that is my perspective because that is what I see work. Bribery works on little children.

Now as for the minimal thought and logic you've just mentioned, sure it does. But to parents, the good (having a kid behaving well for a while) outweighs the bad (having the kids settle for what they like to hear and not think this through).
But hey, they'll know how to behave like little angels right? And thats what we all want right? Logic and reasoning is something they'll learn when they hit the books right? And by then they'll be well behaved AND will be learning how to use logic and reasoning...right?


Why be good,
Ask the parents.
who benefits,
Everyone, apparantly.
when should i be good,
ALL THE TIME right?
are you good,
lol no
is mom good,
lol no
is that good, is this good.
Yes and no
How would you answer these. Could you?
Yes. It's different for each person because each person is a different human who's been dealt different cards in this giant casino called life.
Have you answered them yourself?
I would say so.
Are your answers the right answers?
To me, yes.
Are your answers only for adults?
Yes.
why not for kids.
Because as adults, we think kids can't handle the truth.
blah blah blah
With each of these questions, you get a different result from every person. That's why there are multiple sides to this issue because everyone has something different that they use to gauge whether or not white lies are good or bad, everyone has something different to bring to the table. Want answer's? Take a survey.

You can't say **** like, every child would be terrified of death. As a child the idea was very simple to me and not scary at all. People are born, live, and die.
Kids aren't scared of death, they can't be because we don't "know" what death is. What they would fear is losing their loved ones, or going to hell if they've been taught to do so. Or maybe they'll make up things
to explain what is on the other side.

Yes I can. Lol just because I don't know what death "is" doesn't mean I can't be scared of it. I' was scared of it because of its ramifications on me and/or the things I've known to love. And I think BECAUSE we don't know what it is, that adds a bit to the fear. I think people are scared of **** they don't know about.
Now just because you weren't scared of death doesn't mean every child isn't scared of death. You aren't everyone.
To show that children can be ignorant of the concept of kicking the bucket, I'll just show this.
"Death is considered merely a separation by a child younger than 5. For a child around age 5, death becomes more personal: death is someone who carries others off. When a child understands death isn't just sleeping, he will ask, "Will I die?" At that time the child has a sense of vulnerability."
- www.ad.ndsu.edu
Link: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/he458w.htm
Many children DO wrestle with the concept of death. I know cause I was one of them. :D

What else can I say?
My opinion is in red in my above post.
But even so, I was lied to about certain things so I wouldn't have to wrestle with them just yet. Death was one of them, I'm glad because overcoming my fear of death would have been a lot harder for me if I was in my perfect 4 year old world and not my somewhat-okay 5 or 6 year old world.

Color coded responses.
 

El_LoVo

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
605
Location
Aurora CO
I wrote a lot and then I deleted it but I think I can sum it up.

Is there a right answer to the question
Is lying to kids right? (little white lies are still lies)
If not, then what is the point of any effort put into the subject.
If yes, why is there disagreement on the answer.

you say lying is justified if the lier had good intentions, and the end result is good
if the end result is bad, was the lie justified? (remember there were good intentions)

let me summarize
truth = good
lies= bad

find alternatives to lying.
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
I wrote a lot and then I deleted it but I think I can sum it up.

Is there a right answer to the question
No. But shoot,
Is lying to kids right? (little white lies are still lies)
No. But...
If not, then what is the point of any effort put into the subject.
If the intentions are good, and the outcome is good then a little white lie is good.
If yes, why is there disagreement on the answer.
Because some think that even little white lies are bad.
It's good that there is a disagreement on the answer. It makes it more of an actual debate. I didn't come here to get the question "Are little white lies ethical?" answered. I came here to talk one side.
Idk about you all, but in a debate I'm not looking for the right answer. I'm trying to prove that my side is more right than the other.


you say lying is justified if the lier had good intentions, and the end result is good
if the end result is bad, was the lie justified? (remember there were good intentions)

Little White Lies are justified. They are little, and white. They aren't going to cause any harm. They haven't caused much harm in the past, they shouldn't now. Has there been much harm out of telling kids about Santa? Or telling Tommy that his fish is just sleeping on its back? They are Little, White, Lies.

Side Contention, to address the notion that logic and reasoning are at stake:
Some of you argue that logic and reasoning are lost because it causes the kid to accept what they hear cause they like it and not think about the actual situation.
True, but it does justify lying. Situations like Santa and the fish are just opportunities for a child to attempt to think critically. They do that enough everyday, I highly doubt letting them in on the truth about these things is going to make a difference. Sure they may be some bad, but...
To a parent, the benefits of a little white lie is greater than the harm for everyone, and that is why its justified to them. The good outweighs the bad. Or else they wouldn't do it.


let me summarize
truth = good
Not always. I explained above, with a source that truths in life, such as death can have negative ramifications on a child. Just because truth may be what a mature mind likes, it doesn't have to be something that a not matured mind would appreciate.
lies= bad

Not always. For its sake, I'm arguing that Little, white lies, although lies =/= bad.


find alternatives to lying.

I'm not debating policy here. Finding an alternative to lying isn't gonna further the debate about little white lies, its just gonna give us more meat to chew up about something that is not directly related to the question at hand. Again, debating little white lies, not alternatives to them.
Again, my side.
And again, responses in color.

El Lovo, idk about you but I like this topic. Very public forum, just without the need for as much evidence.
 

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,604
Location
B'ham, Alabama
In a debate I try to get to the right answer rather than trying to "win" the debate.
peace
That is more of discussing than debating (if only this was the discussion hall).

Also, I agree with your other post (#23) almost completely.
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
In a debate I try to get to the right answer rather than trying to "win" the debate.
peace
Okay, well then there isn't much to say between us.

That is more of discussing than debating (if only this was the discussion hall).

Also, I agree with your other post (#23) almost completely.
Are there reasons why you don't agree with my response to it, or my Teal response to his following one?
I wanna further it a bit. I like this topic.
 

Seikend

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
415
It's been thrown around a lot that children "can't handle the truth" or don't comprehend. But what exactly, are the consequences for that? I'm struggling to see what the actual problem is. What happens to a child when they can't comprehend something? They can't suffer any kind of trauma if they don't have the mental capacity to understand the 'mature issue'. if they don't understand they'll either push the subject until they do understand, or give up.

Darx: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/he458w.htm

From the same paragraph you source from reads the following: 'Encourage questions, and don't be embarrassed by children's candid comments. Express what you are feeling in terms they will understand. Avoid euphemisms and statements such as, "Grandpa is in a deep sleep," or "was laid to rest." This is confusing to children. Be honest. "Grandpa died because his heart stopped beating." "Susie died because the seat belt was not used and her body was badly hurt in the car accident."'

While the source may agree that children may not be mentally mature enough to deal with death, it suggests simple honesty to deal with the issue. Is the source reliable? Or do you believe it's only reliable in it's analysis of children, and not in how children should be treated?



I'm firmly against white lies. I hold knowledge and education of a child above "discomfort" or whatever is being implied, and parents telling children white lies only encourages a social acceptance of white lies.
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
It's been thrown around a lot that children "can't handle the truth" or don't comprehend. But what exactly, are the consequences for that? I'm struggling to see what the actual problem is. What happens to a child when they can't comprehend something? They can't suffer any kind of trauma if they don't have the mental capacity to understand the 'mature issue'. if they don't understand they'll either push the subject until they do understand, or give up.

Darx: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/he458w.htm

From the same paragraph you source from reads the following: 'Encourage questions, and don't be embarrassed by children's candid comments. Express what you are feeling in terms they will understand. Avoid euphemisms and statements such as, "Grandpa is in a deep sleep," or "was laid to rest." This is confusing to children. Be honest. "Grandpa died because his heart stopped beating." "Susie died because the seat belt was not used and her body was badly hurt in the car accident."'

While the source may agree that children may not be mentally mature enough to deal with death, it suggests simple honesty to deal with the issue. Is the source reliable? Or do you believe it's only reliable in it's analysis of children, and not in how children should be treated?



I'm firmly against white lies. I hold knowledge and education of a child above "discomfort" or whatever is being implied, and parents telling children white lies only encourages a social acceptance of white lies.
To answer your question, I say the latter.
I'm against telling the child the whole truth. It's not that they can't comprehend it. We underrate the comprehension of children. I'm sure they can get very scared from the truth though. I'm pretty sure that if you tell a kid who is not familiar with death that eventually they will die, and if you explain to them exactly what death is and how people often die then the kid will freak out. Letting them discover death on their own, letting them figure it out without us telling them straight up what it is is best. But before then, I think that they should live a little in bliss first.
 

Seikend

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
415
To answer your question, I say the latter.
I'm against telling the child the whole truth. It's not that they can't comprehend it. We underrate the comprehension of children. I'm sure they can get very scared from the truth though. I'm pretty sure that if you tell a kid who is not familiar with death that eventually they will die, and if you explain to them exactly what death is and how people often die then the kid will freak out. Letting them discover death on their own, letting them figure it out without us telling them straight up what it is is best. But before then, I think that they should live a little in bliss first.
Let's just assume for now that the truth does scare children.

Would you rather that a parent taught them about it, and answered their questions, showing there is little to be scared of?

Or would you rather the child figured it out, and believes that they alone are in possession of this knowledge (since the child doesn't believe the parents know), and has to deal with the traumatic truth alone?

As a child, I'd want that parental support.
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
Let's just assume for now that the truth does scare children.

Would you rather that a parent taught them about it, and answered their questions, showing there is little to be scared of?

Or would you rather the child figured it out, and believes that they alone are in possession of this knowledge (since the child doesn't believe the parents know), and has to deal with the traumatic truth alone?

As a child, I'd want that parental support.
Fallacy of logic to say that all children who figured it out on their own will have to deal with it alone. People are all around you.
You'll get the parental support after you figure it out on your own dog. You're gonna be bound to have questions, you've got to go somewhere. Somebody is going to help.

Until then, remove death from the list of things to be scared of for a while. Let the kid live his life as if he's got nothing to worry about for a bit.
 

Seikend

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
415
You'll get the parental support after you figure it out on your own dog. You're gonna be bound to have questions, you've got to go somewhere.
So they realise their parents lied to them.

Either children have to deal with the whole mistrust issue in the OP, or you have children growing up believing lying is acceptable.

Quantifying whether the avoidance of fear, or the loss of the value of truth is kind of silly, so I'll drop that train of thought.


I'll return back to fear.

Fear isn't inherently bad. Phobias are bad, yes. But fear stops us from taking unnecessary risks. A fear of death prevents people from killing themselves, a fear of cliff edges prevents people from falling great heights.

What is the issue with fear? Are we trying to protect all children from "negative" emotions, like fear, pain and unhappiness? Most, if not all emotions serve a purpose, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

If a child is fearless, they are open to danger. There are so many potential dangers that could be ignored by a child with no concept of death. Children need to know about death and to fear it.

While we shouldn't go out of our way to expose children to negative emotions, we shouldn't bubble wrap them away from them either. They need to develop, and to grow. Hiding them from the fear of truth will only halter their learning of the avoidance of that very fear.
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
Sure fear prevents us from doing stupid things that can harm us. But in the world the kid grows up in, probably a lower-middle class home that doesn't face many dangers to begin with, what is it that the kid should look out for? If the kid is gonna jump off the table, the parent is going to stop him from falling before the kid does. They don't have anything to be afraid of. When they grow up a little, maybe when they start getting bullied by that fat kid in preschool, then they can learn to deal with it then.

Again, ignorance is gonna be bliss when you're a careless child. Fear give them something to avoid, something that can cause them to care. When you're a kid, you're gonna be pretty happy cause you're running with your pants off doing whatever you want, and you'll be safe cause parents are gonna be there for you. Why let fear ruin that then when you're gonna face fear and its challenges anyways?


Honestly, being a dude without any kid, I don't know what to tell them. But what I do know is that I wouldn't want to be the dude to tell the kid the bad news that, hey, life can suck at times. Oh and it can end too.
Thinking intrinsically, I think that is probably the main reason why parents lie to kids, at least until they are old enough to not react as bad as a scared, small child.
 

Seikend

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
415
Sure fear prevents us from doing stupid things that can harm us. But in the world the kid grows up in, probably a lower-middle class home that doesn't face many dangers to begin with, what is it that the kid should look out for? If the kid is gonna jump off the table, the parent is going to stop him from falling before the kid does. They don't have anything to be afraid of. When they grow up a little, maybe when they start getting bullied by that fat kid in preschool, then they can learn to deal with it then.

Again, ignorance is gonna be bliss when you're a careless child. Fear give them something to avoid, something that can cause them to care. When you're a kid, you're gonna be pretty happy cause you're running with your pants off doing whatever you want, and you'll be safe cause parents are gonna be there for you. Why let fear ruin that then when you're gonna face fear and its challenges anyways?


Honestly, being a dude without any kid, I don't know what to tell them. But what I do know is that I wouldn't want to be the dude to tell the kid the bad news that, hey, life can suck at times. Oh and it can end too.
Thinking intrinsically, I think that is probably the main reason why parents lie to kids, at least until they are old enough to not react as bad as a scared, small child.
For the table example, it would be silly to assume that all children are constantly being supervised by an adult. They go off and do their own thing. In nurseries, the number of children far outweigh the adults etc. Accidents do happen.


http://www.rospa.com/resources/Info/child_accidents.pdf

Statistics for Child deaths in England and Wales.


  • In 2008, there were 116 deaths in 5-14 year olds (I'm assuming that's the age group we're talking about). 116 might not seem like a lot, but this is only for deaths. This does not include any injuries incurred (major or minor) via accidents.

The most interesting table is the "Table showing child victims of home and leisure accidents mechanism and age group, 2002"

  • Around 1.4 million non fatal accidents occurred in one year. Note: These accidents are significant enough that the children went to hospital, these arent just scrapes and grazes.

  • The current(ish) total population (adults and children) of Wales and England combined is around 54.5 million [1], just to add a little perspective to that number.

And your list of your potential dangers to children:

Suspected poisoning, Acute over exertion, Bite/Sting, Chemical effect, Crushing/piercing, Electric/radiation, Fall , Foreign body, Striking contact, Suffocation , Thermal effect.

Falling can happen anywhere, there's toxic cleaning supplies, plastic bags, small items that can be choked on.



To suggest that children are in no danger is absurd. There is danger, and it's clear that it's significant.


And to counter what I think the next point might be, warning children of danger won't mean they will stay inside and do nothing. I'm not suggesting the extreme of scaring them into doing nothing with their childhood, but to teach them to exercise caution.


Also, regarding the not telling children because you don't want to be the bad guy. That's hardly a good reason. Parents are too afraid to hurt their children, they want them to be happy. They're too scared to be honest. That's reasonable, but it doesn't justify their actions. Parents just need to man up.

----

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England
Population - 2008 estimate 51,446,000[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales
" It has a population of three million"
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
For the table example, it would be silly to assume that all children are constantly being supervised by an adult. They go off and do their own thing. In nurseries, the number of children far outweigh the adults etc. Accidents do happen.


http://www.rospa.com/resources/Info/child_accidents.pdf

Statistics for Child deaths in England and Wales.


  • In 2008, there were 116 deaths in 5-14 year olds (I'm assuming that's the age group we're talking about). 116 might not seem like a lot, but this is only for deaths. This does not include any injuries incurred (major or minor) via accidents.

The most interesting table is the "Table showing child victims of home and leisure accidents mechanism and age group, 2002"

  • Around 1.4 million non fatal accidents occurred in one year. Note: These accidents are significant enough that the children went to hospital, these arent just scrapes and grazes.

  • The current(ish) total population (adults and children) of Wales and England combined is around 54.5 million [1], just to add a little perspective to that number.

And your list of your potential dangers to children:

Suspected poisoning, Acute over exertion, Bite/Sting, Chemical effect, Crushing/piercing, Electric/radiation, Fall , Foreign body, Striking contact, Suffocation , Thermal effect.

Falling can happen anywhere, there's toxic cleaning supplies, plastic bags, small items that can be choked on.



To suggest that children are in no danger is absurd. There is danger, and it's clear that it's significant.


And to counter what I think the next point might be, warning children of danger won't mean they will stay inside and do nothing. I'm not suggesting the extreme of scaring them into doing nothing with their childhood, but to teach them to exercise caution.


Also, regarding the not telling children because you don't want to be the bad guy. That's hardly a good reason. Parents are too afraid to hurt their children, they want them to be happy. They're too scared to be honest. That's reasonable, but it doesn't justify their actions. Parents just need to man up.

----

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England
Population - 2008 estimate 51,446,000[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales
" It has a population of three million"
You shouldn't rely on fear to be the thing that's keeping the child safe. Their parents should be the ones doing so by taking actions such as keeping plastic plugs in electric outlets and keeping pills and harmful chemicals out of reach.
Your bolded statement is true, however it is up to the parents to make sure **** like that doesn't happen. Having a kid means you are responsible for the well being of the child. If you think fear is going to keep a kid from doing something they shouldn't, then you're unfit to be a parent.
Teach them to exercise caution: Go ahead. But tell them that they shouldn't do something because it's going to hurt, not because can possibly die.

I'm not saying that they should "bubble wrap" them, or do whatever they can to make sure the child isn't scared, I'm saying that parents should like to the child if they know that the child will react extremely negatively, when they know that if the child matures he or she won't do as such.

Well how would you warn children anyways? Will telling them that they could die make a difference? Will telling them about death keep them from falling off tables?
No it wouldn't. Warning them wouldn't do anything, as you've said. All it would do is freak the kid out. Wait a couple of years when the kid has had more experience, when the kid watches TV and finds would what death is along with sex, drugs, and all that good stuff. They won't react nearly as bad as they would if they were just inexperienced children who only recently outgrew the mind of a toddler.
 

Seikend

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
415
You shouldn't rely on fear to be the thing that's keeping the child safe. Their parents should be the ones doing so by taking actions such as keeping plastic plugs in electric outlets and keeping pills and harmful chemicals out of reach.
Your bolded statement is true, however it is up to the parents to make sure **** like that doesn't happen. Having a kid means you are responsible for the well being of the child. If you think fear is going to keep a kid from doing something they shouldn't, then you're unfit to be a parent.
Strawman.

I never suggested to rely on fear. Neither did I discourage parent's from exercising responsibility either. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. Why can't parents do both?

Teach them to exercise caution: Go ahead. But tell them that they shouldn't do something because it's going to hurt, not because can possibly die.
I agree, teach them that things hurt.

But as I said earlier , I wouldn't go out of my way to teach a child about death. That wasn't my point. But if they question me about death, I sure as hell am going to explain it to them. It'll reinforce caution.

I'm not saying that they should "bubble wrap" them, or do whatever they can to make sure the child isn't scared, I'm saying that parents should like to the child if they know that the child will react extremely negatively, when they know that if the child matures he or she won't do as such.
Back in a circle we go. Is fear an "extremely negative" way to act?
Or are you suggesting another extremely negative reaction?

Well how would you warn children anyways? Will telling them that they could die make a difference? Will telling them about death keep them from falling off tables?
No it wouldn't. Warning them wouldn't do anything, as you've said.
All it would do is freak the kid out.
I don't remember saying that. I said they wouldn't avoid all danger. That doesn't mean I'm implying the opposite, there is a middle ground.

What's a child doing on a table in the first place? If they're there just for fun, then they might be more cautious when near the edge of the table. They might not haphazardly jump off the table for fun.

Of course, teaching them wouldn't erase all danger. Accidents will always still happen. A child could still accidentally slip and fall. But if you can reduce the risk, then why not?


Also, "freak the kid out". What do you mean?

Wait a couple of years when the kid has had more experience, when the kid watches TV and finds would what death is along with sex, drugs, and all that good stuff. They won't react nearly as bad as they would if they were just inexperienced children who only recently outgrew the mind of a toddler.
Once again, same thing. "They won't react nearly as bad". What is this bad reaction? Are you still talking about fear? Stop talking about "bad reactions" and "negative feelings" and explain to me what it is (if it isn't fear) and why it's bad.
 

Darxmarth23

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
2,976
Location
Dead. *****es.
Strawman.

I never suggested to rely on fear. Neither did I discourage parent's from exercising responsibility either. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. Why can't parents do both?


I agree, teach them that things hurt.

But as I said earlier , I wouldn't go out of my way to teach a child about death. That wasn't my point. But if they question me about death, I sure as hell am going to explain it to them. It'll reinforce caution.



Back in a circle we go. Is fear an "extremely negative" way to act?
Or are you suggesting another extremely negative reaction?



I don't remember saying that. I said they wouldn't avoid all danger. That doesn't mean I'm implying the opposite, there is a middle ground.

What's a child doing on a table in the first place? If they're there just for fun, then they might be more cautious when near the edge of the table. They might not haphazardly jump off the table for fun.

Of course, teaching them wouldn't erase all danger. Accidents will always still happen. A child could still accidentally slip and fall. But if you can reduce the risk, then why not?


Also, "freak the kid out". What do you mean?



Once again, same thing. "They won't react nearly as bad". What is this bad reaction? Are you still talking about fear? Stop talking about "bad reactions" and "negative feelings" and explain to me what it is (if it isn't fear) and why it's bad.
I've seen a child who was told about death who then became scared of everything, thinking that it would in one way or another, kill her. She clearly couldn't handle it; the fear clouded her mind and no matter how many times my parents and others told her that "No, it's not gonna kill you" she still thought that it would. Those days were traumatizing for her; they had a major impact on her view of life, the universe, and everything. Basically, her childhood was shot. I don't think any kid should have to endure something like that unless they have to.
Until a child becomes mature enough to not let the fear annihilate her judgment then I think it would be safe to use little white lies to get him or her through the day.

Sure go ahead and rely on both. But how much are you gonna rely on fear? When dealing with a child, I would say not very much. The kid doesn't have the judgment to know what is harmful and what isn't. The kid is also not gonna be scared of a power outlet, a windex bottle, or any other household item that is deadly. They aren't scary things, yet they can kill you. How is fear gonna stop them from that? In an average household, you aren't gonna see a tiger break through the wall and roar at the kid before chewing it. Fear doesn't ever have many chances to tell the kid "Yo, don't do this. It's gonna kill you." Kids have nothing to be scared of in their houses. Fear rarely comes into play.
THAT is why those adults who were responsible for the kids shouldn't have been idiots. That is why those statistics aren't gonna help you much.

I apologize for bringing in personal experience into this, as I know people in here are going to question its credibility.
 

\/aarsivius

Smash Cadet
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
61
Location
Scotland.
I personally believe lying is situational. Let's see two examples from my childhood. My real name is replaced with "V".

Example 1: V, at Easter times a bunny gives you lots and lots of eggs!
This is fine, it allows children to use their imagination. The Easter Bunny, Santa, the age-old "where do babies come from" question and death/"just sleeping" are all OK to lie about to children.

Example 2: *passing a McDonalds and i've asked if we can go* V, we can't go to the McDonalds because it is closed.
WRONG. This is just getting a child off your back. Why can't you just say "No, because we don't have any money"? Questions for 8 years is the risk you take by D.I.Y.ing or adopting a kid.

If you are gonna lie to a kid, then THINK. "Is this the right situation?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom