Child Death

[InconceivableTruth]

I am going to pull a 180 and say we need to kill children because there are to many of them.

Spare the kids, kill the parents that are having too many kids.

That doesn't really make sense.

First off, children are NOT beings. I define a being as having a self-image and more potential for chaotic action (i.g., going against instinctual impulses). Behavioral biology proves animals, such as dogs, simply follow instinctual impulses whereas humans are capable of a wider degree of action. I don't care if you think human babies are cute, but they are simply not beings. Psychology has proven they are solipsists (i.g., they cannot conceive of other minds besides their own). Furthermore, they have had enough time to develop the cognition for greater capabilities of suffering meaning they resemble lesser animals, as previously described. When you hold a teddy bear in front of a child and hide it from their view, then they simply think the doll has "disappeared".

Why kill a parent who has more potential for suffering when their cognition is much more advanced than a child's? Their accumulated memories, desires, beliefs (that are usually at odds with the universe), and so forth lead for a greater potential for suffering. A child is like an animal at first, simply following instinct. It cannot view itself as an aggregate in this world (i.g., the self-reflexivity of consciousness). True suffering arises when we view ourselves as individuals in an indifferent world or attach ourselves to momentary states of peace. A child is incapable of this.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

I am going to pull a 180 and say we need to kill children because there are to many of them.

Spare the kids, kill the parents that are having too many kids. As much as I hate to offend people but 'parents' in Africa that continue to have children when they know they can't feed one little alone SIX are, for lack of a better word, social criminals that deserve nothing less <.<

You think Africans don't love their children as much as white people, huh?

First off, children are NOT beings. I don't care if you think they're cute, but they are simply not beings. Psychology has proven they are solipsists (i.g., they cannot conceive of other minds besides their own). When you hold a teddy bear in front of a child and hide it from their view, then they simply think the doll has "disappeared".

So your definition of existence doesn't incorporate physical form, thoughts, or capacity for love. Existence is defined by focusing attention on you, because you're all that matters. You egomaniac.

 

[InconceivableTruth]

So your definition of existence doesn't incorporate physical form, thoughts, or capacity for love. Existence is defined by focusing attention on you, because you're all that matters. You egomaniac.

I edited the argument a few seconds ago:

"First off, children are NOT beings. I define a being as having a self-image and more potential for chaotic action (i.g., going against instinctual impulses). Behavioral biology proves animals, such as dogs, simply follow instinctual impulses whereas humans are capable of a wider degree of action. I don't care if you think human babies are cute, but they are simply not beings. Psychology has proven they are solipsists (i.g., they cannot conceive of other minds besides their own). They have had enough time to develop the cognition for greater capabilities of suffering meaning they resemble lesser animals. When you hold a teddy bear in front of a child and hide it from their view, then they simply think the doll has "disappeared"."

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

And made it dumber. Dogs don't exist! They're only in my head! I won't kill for them, no matter what they say!

 

[InconceivableTruth]

And made it dumber. Dogs don't exist! They're only in my head! I won't kill for them, no matter what they say!

They exist, but eating them is no different than eating a chicken. Behavioral biology has proven both are primarily run by instinct. They do not have the emotional capacities and degree of "freedom" as humans, dolphins, and etc.

A dog could easily be controlled through classical and operant conditioning. Their behaviors are entirely predictable whereas a human is a lot more "unique".

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Go look at a dead body of an adult, and a dead body of a child. Which one hits you harder emotionally?

An adult, as they have lost more by dying. That's why I posted this thread. To figure out why society deems a child's death to be worse.

Seriously? Dying children break my heart, dying adults much less so.

Especially when it comes to famine-affected areas because these kids were born into a world that has given them no choices or chances. Adults brought them into the world to suffer. If you're an 'adult' you've already lived a third of your life at least in the OECD... and yes teenagers are NOT ADULTS IMO. If you're under 25 you're still a child.

An adult has already developed a world view, and has probably had all the chances possible to impart wisdom and talent that may set him or her beyond their peers.

A child hasn't.

Think of the possible genius writers, philosophers, scientists we have lost with every child that has died due to the irrespeonsibility of adults.

I'm not advocating having lots of kids so we can have lots of possible candidates for 'genius' brand ... but what I am advocating that children are being killed for reasons that are merely extendable to adult inaction.

Children are innocent and should atleast developa chance to share their potentioal with the world if brought into the collective sphere of Human conciousness... So whenever a child dies before getting a chance to do so I think it's logical most people balk at it and label it a tragedy with good reason.

 

[Kiriona]

I am going to pull a 180 and say we need to kill children because there are to many of them.

This. I hate kids. A lot.

OT: But here's my response to the proposed question. The same reason people tend to get more emotional about the death of an animal.

 

[Paulie92]

In my opinion it's because it's unknown what a child could do. With an adult you've seen who they are and something known is taken away from you, a child unkown

It's like a magic trick not being as impressive when you know how it's done, it's still kind of cool, just no where near as cool when you can't imagine how they did it

In summary children are like magic tricks?!?

 

[neoontime]

Kids haven't experienced everything yet, unlike adults so it's pretty obvious.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

And made it dumber. Dogs don't exist! They're only in my head! I won't kill for them, no matter what they say!

They exist, but eating them is no different than eating a chicken. Behavioral biology has proven both are primarily run by instinct. They do not have the emotional capacities and degree of "freedom" as humans, dolphins, and etc.

A dog could easily be controlled through classical and operant conditioning. Their behaviors are entirely predictable whereas a human is a lot more "unique".

Quit changing your terms. Dogs are smarter than chickens and are capable of forming attachments [http://www.anthrozoology.org/development_of_the_attachment_bond_in_guide_dogs]. Point me toward your research papers. So can a person (I will shock you if you touch an object. You are being conditioned to not touch it.) Sentence fragments.

 

[InconceivableTruth]

And made it dumber. Dogs don't exist! They're only in my head! I won't kill for them, no matter what they say!

They exist, but eating them is no different than eating a chicken. Behavioral biology has proven both are primarily run by instinct. They do not have the emotional capacities and degree of "freedom" as humans, dolphins, and etc.

A dog could easily be controlled through classical and operant conditioning. Their behaviors are entirely predictable whereas a human is a lot more "unique".

Quit changing your terms. Dogs are smarter than chickens and are capable of forming attachments [http://www.anthrozoology.org/development_of_the_attachment_bond_in_guide_dogs]. Point me toward your research papers. So can a person (I will shock you if you touch an object. You are being conditioned to not touch it.) Sentence fragments.

You will not be able to find any paper indicating a dog committed suicide, for example (a display of going against instinct). It's a widely accepted fact dogs save lives and form attachments as a mechanism for survival. Moreover, their altruism is documented as instinct. I can almost guarantee you won't find anything on animals making choices besides empathetic ones either. I need to open up my AP Biology textbook again, but these are generally accepted fact.

For crying out loud, they don't even have a prefrontal cortex. Sir, please take a step back and look at this objectively.

1) Sentience is what results in true suffering.
2) Babies are not sentient.
C) Thus babies are not capable of true suffering.

This is a FACT. It's like arguing evolution...

this is a fact just like it.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

You will not be able to find any paper indicating a dog committed suicide, for example (a display of going against instinct). It's a widely accepted fact dogs save lives and form attachments as a mechanism for survival. Moreover, their altruism is documented as instinct. I can almost guarantee you won't find anything on animals making choices besides empathetic ones either. I need to open up my AP Biology textbook again, but these are generally accepted fact.

For crying out loud, they don't even have a prefrontal cortex. Sir, please take a step back and look at this objectively.

1) Sentience is what results in true suffering.
2) Babies are not sentient.
C) Thus babies are not capable of true suffering.

This is a FACT. It's like arguing evolution...

this is a fact just like it.

Au contraire. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411038/Why-dogs-leapt-deaths-Overtoun-Bridge.html]

Sentience: the ability to feel or perceive, both of which babies and any animal with even a modest nervous can do.

Do you mean consciousness? You must be using a vary narrow, non-standard definition.

Sapience is the only possible thing you could be correct in. See, you keep changing your terms, making these vigorous statements, claiming the argument is closed, AND YOU'RE STILL GETTING IT WRONG. [http://www.google.com/search?q=prefrontal+cortex+dogs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a]

 

[Caligulove]

There's a massive waste of potential...

You never know what might become of an infant. Even if they don't change the world, they still affect many other people by simply existing in the same world as us

 

[swolf]

Because, the child hasn't had a chance to truly LIVE and experience life. Also, they are considered more defenseless than an adult.

 

[Katnap_Devikat]

Honestly don't care either way, the other day I laughed when the news came on and a story was on about some kid died doing something...can't remember but it was really stupid (not hang yourself because you can't play your wii stupid but it was close). Everyone else just gave me the 'how could you? thats so heartless!' look.

I laughed more.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

Honestly don't care either way, the other day I laughed when the news came on and a story was on about some kid died doing something...can't remember but it was really stupid (not hang yourself because you can't play your wii stupid but it was close). Everyone else just gave me the 'how could you? thats so heartless!' look.

I laughed more.

Don't cut yourself on that 3dge, padre.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You think Africans don't love their children as much as white people, huh?

I hope you're joking. But to clarify;

No, I think any dick that has children when they are going to just suffer is a dick regardless of nationality, creed or 'race'. If you're being serious, glad to see people are so knee-jerk as to play the 'race' card whenever they can.

 

[Dr. Whiggs]

You think Africans don't love their children as much as white people, huh?

I hope you're joking. But to clarify;

No, I think any dick that has children when they are going to just suffer is a dick regardless of nationality, creed or 'race'. If you're being serious, glad to see people are so knee-jerk as to play the 'race' card whenever they can.

Nobody brings children into the world intending for them to suffer. But you just had to call out Africans, specifically, didn't you?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I am going to pull a 180 and say we need to kill children because there are to many of them.

Spare the kids, kill the parents that are having too many kids.

That doesn't really make sense.

First off, children are NOT beings. I define a being as having a self-image and more potential for chaotic action (i.g., going against instinctual impulses). Behavioral biology proves animals, such as dogs, simply follow instinctual impulses whereas humans are capable of a wider degree of action. I don't care if you think human babies are cute, but they are simply not beings. Psychology has proven they are solipsists (i.g., they cannot conceive of other minds besides their own). Furthermore, they have had enough time to develop the cognition for greater capabilities of suffering meaning they resemble lesser animals, as previously described. When you hold a teddy bear in front of a child and hide it from their view, then they simply think the doll has "disappeared".

Why kill a parent who has more potential for suffering when their cognition is much more advanced than a child's? Their accumulated memories, desires, beliefs (that are usually at odds with the universe), and so forth lead for a greater potential for suffering. A child is like an animal at first, simply following instinct. It cannot view itself as an aggregate in this world (i.g., the self-reflexivity of consciousness). True suffering arises when we view ourselves as individuals in an indifferent world or attach ourselves to momentary states of peace. A child is incapable of this.

Okay ... how are they not a 'being'? A child may not have a developed macro-world view (as defined in Piaget's study, I will admit) but they are still capable of rational conception. Saying children are not 'beings' is giving them a station no higher than that of non-sentient animals which is wrong.

Children still have an idea of the 'self' .... which is why children are incredibly megalomaniacal ... because they assume everything they see is 'theirs' ... which is why they cry and throw tantrums when we tell them to put down things in stores.

A 'being', in my opinion is something that maintains a coherent knowledge and acceptance of the self as a congruous entity that is largely unified and present in a fixed spatio-temporal sense.

The child knows about the 'I' ... because it is an apriori construct that a sentient creature must have from first breath.

You don't just drift through life and then suddenly become self aware. You are ALWAYS self-aware, from day one of birth when you become a seperate entity from your mother you are aware of the self.

Babies exhibit this knowledge of self and 'other' which is evident when they cry as soon as their mothers disapear behind a door, or out of sight of a child. In the child's mind the mother has disappeared from existence, which is proof of rudimentary understandings of the difference between self and other.

Your argument is fallacious, because it assumes that one 'gives up' instinctive behaviour, and it also assumes that babies have no sense of the self which is a lie (by the same psychologists of which words you twist), it also assumes that idiosyncracies and behaviour isn't in some way inate.

Father's will often put their children on their shoulders ... ever wonder why? Because it's what our closest ancestors (great apes) do with THEIR kids. Our lives are governed by instinct, without it we would have been dead long ago.

Babies will cry when hungry because it's all they can do. We as adults don't cry because we can go to the local deli and pick up a sandwich. But I'm sure if I locked an adult in a dark room they would start crying once they got hungry too <.< Well, at the very least I know if I was kidnapped and locked in a dark room I'd probably cry when I got hungry too.

 

[superbatranger]

Because it makes us think of what the child never had the chance to experience, life. It also reminds us that death can come at any time, no matter how old you are.