A question about toys

You child is playing at a friend's house. One child hits the other one with a tonka truck, a bull dozer. Do you:

If it did not exist, that child would not have used it. It is like demon possession - the child had no choice but to use it because it existed.

Therefore - Tonka is to blame....

I'm always frustrated every time some kid shoots up a school and the media jumps on the idea that we should prosecute the child as an adult and suggest that the parents have no responsibility.

In the case you mention above, I'd call the parents and ask them about how they are raising their kid and suggest teaching him to handle his negative feelings in a less violent way.

This society runs from developmental psychology. Nature over nurture is an easy and popular dodge that is the underlying assumption behind much of our criminal justice system. When a kid commits a crime he's a bad seed and don't blame the parents.

Crap.

other) it might be that your child was the doer and the other was the victim. does that change the response?

What about those families who have one or more great, normal kids and one monster, or even one not so great?

Each case is different, each case is unique, I don't think it's always fair to place blame on parents.

I don't think we all get the same percentages in the nature/nurture combination, for some people nature is a lot more compelling than others.

:eyes:

How we look for intelligent solutions to issues instead of just rushing in and doing what seems easiest?

Where would you fix blame in the above? And what would you do to try and prevent it from occurring again?

..from one that was moved to another forum. You just like picking at scabs.

Not surprising actually, given your obsession with the topic.

i think we want the same things, but disagree about how to get there.

Does not make you a bad person or a nut, anymore than it makes me one.

As John Nash might say 'Look through to find the Governing Dynamics' - True in math, true in science, and true with how we deal with social issues.

a course of action - if any.

"...One child hits the other one with a tonka truck, a bull dozer..."

Let the kids work it out.

Kids hurt kids.

Oh Noess!!! Jeebus they are taking my guns, my cigarettes away! Big gubmint!!!! Nanny state!!!
Muh cheeseburgers!!!!

Black helicopters be coming from the big gubmint to take away muh cigarettes and firearms...tax revolt!!@! Teabags!!!! Regulations bad!!!! Bring out them teabags!!! Huzzah!

I am for government, and regulations by said government.

Just not for it going too far one direction or the other.

Balance. it is not libertarian to believe that the government should not control all aspects of our lives to protect us.

But all I get in response is a label, as though that makes my argument invalid.

Kind of like feel good legislation. Does nothing to fix an issue, but makes someone feel better about themselves.

Guess that is just the norm for some here. Feel good, use labels, and don't address root causes because that requires us facing things we might not like.

I think we are very, very far from having gone too far in the direction of regulation. Are you kidding me? The Bush years have all been about dismantling many of the environmental, health and safety regulations that have been set up by multiple governments before his.

The reason you get a label, is because you are arguing about stuff that is so far from the reality in this country. We have food safety issues, issues with safety due to most of our imports from china, we have had multiple stories of scientific import suppressed by the Bush admin. At a time like this worrying about too much regulation is so patently absurd. It is entirely divorced from our current deregulated nightmare of a society. But you can't suggest any form of regulation/good govt without at least 30% of this country getting up in arms about "muh freedumbs being taken away."

The problem with a lot of the stuff you guys seem to get up in arms over, is that it seems really divorced from our current reality as a bloated, over-consuming society that is not given the appropriate information on its consumption patterns, their impacts down the road etc.
The constant equating of an informed society making decisions based on the best information out there with some sort of "far-lefty, eco fascistic" society is what makes it so laughable.

And there is an enormous difference between regulation based on scientific studies for instance and wanting abortion/gay marriage banned because Jeebus said so. Some of these arguments comparing government interference from the left and right seem to want to blur that real line, which I find disingenuous at worst, naive at best.

"Tell me what amount of legislation you consider appropriate?"
-The less the better. If we are going to pass laws on things lets think them out first and make as few as possible. Instead of making laws based on events and emotions.

"The reason you get a label, is because you are arguing about stuff that is so far from the reality in this country."
Free choice and exercising that is far from reality here? Maybe in a fundie based America it is, but not in the one I want to live in.

Freedom of belief, where to work, whether or not to have an abortion, whether or not a business can decide to allow smoking, whether or not we allow people to own guns, etc.

I get a label because some are too afraid to face the truth about what free choice really means (like those on the RW are) - that sometimes people don't make choices we don't like. And instead of embracing the diversity of people and their lives we want to limit it.

Although when it comes to folks on the left it seems we make excuses for why we want to limit freedom. We just couch it in a prettier language and instead of saying Jeebus made us do it we find other reasons to do the same thing.

"The constant equating of an informed society making decisions based on the best information out there with some sort of "far-lefty, eco fascistic" society is what makes it so laughable."

You mean the shiny object of the day? When do you stand on a solid and simple principle and go from there? If you keep moving the goal posts based on what we learned today we can twist that in many ways and erode peoples' freedoms easily.

If an informed society found it harmful to the rest of society when it came to something like abortions would you be in favor of outlawing them? I mean, people don't need to have abortions, they know what causes babies, and yet they still engage in sex. Abortions affect me in that they re-direct health care services away from sick people because some decided of their own free choice to have sex. Guys don't want to pay child support - keep it in your pants. Women don't want to get pregnant, keep your pants on.

An informed society might well take all that as gospel and deny other people their rights to free choice. And by the logic of some here that would just be fine and dandy.


"And there is an enormous difference between regulation based on scientific studies for instance and wanting abortion/gay marriage banned because Jeebus said so."

You mean the same scientific studies that today say one thing and tomorrow another? Mylar causes cancer. Oh wait it doesn't. I could spend a whole day discussing and showing scientific studies that contradict one another.

And I could show as well how often people choose to believe those studies if they support their own personal 'belief'.

At some damn point as a party and as a people we stand up for some principles.

Like gays should be able to serve in the military - even if some study from some guy with a degree tells us it might be bad for us. We allow women the freedom to choose what they do with their bodies, even if some folks don't agree it is a good idea.

When the hell did believing in freedom and having sensible government regulation become equated with being libertarian?

Oh I know - when fundies on both sides decided they did not have enough power to force their personal ideals on others.

no one is to blame. Toddlers hit other kids all the time and the other kids either cry or hit back. there doesn't seem to be any real reasons for these attacks. But my guess is they do it because they can't really communicate

Just to provide an answer as stupid as the question)

Blame the perp, and if you don't trust the adult in that household to supervise and to correct problems, don't send your kid to play there.

It assumes there blame to be assigned, rather than kids playing with one kid accidentally getting hurt.

Talk to the kids about safety, stick a bandage or an ice cube on the boo-boo, and move on with life.

sarcasm.jpg

you have to learn how to deal with it. kids will hit kids. deal with it. if your kid hits the other one with the toy, then you give your kid a time out and tell them we don't hit kids. if their kid hits your kid, then they should give a time out and tell the kid we don't hit other kids. why does everything have to be a sue someone kind of thing. we can't keep our kids away from everything! we must teach our kids to get along in the world in which these things exist.

FWIW...my husband and his brother had metal tonka truck as kids and hit each other with them. i do believe the indentation in bob's forehead beetween his eyes is from one such incident. he seems to have survived otherwise intact. life happens. kids do things they shouldn't. as a parent we teach them what is and isn't appropriate. and that is how it has to be. whether the toys are metal or plastic or anything else.

it's amazing any kid has ever survived childhood! i mean, i think of the toys we had as kids. we never had helmets! our outlet covers or anything else like that. we learned by making mistakes. and our world wasn't child proofed. and yet somehow we survived and have learned what is ok and what may not be so ok.

Were dogs designed to fight and attack people? Were cars designed to run over people in crowds?

Guns were designed as a tool to help humankind get food in a better manner, and a safer one for them.

And to protect us from others.

How people choose to use the things they have is up to them - do you blame the object or the person who wields it? And do you see the issues leading to violence being what tools people have, or what situations they find themselves in?

We have a lot of issues to face, and those issues are not caused by the objects that are at our disposal but by how we have treated one another as a society.

They are designed to shoot a projectile from point A to B, and if to kill anything it is animals.

I blame who ever taught the child that quarrels could be settled with violence.

Teeehee teehee...