SC's forum posts

#1 Posted by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

Grey area, as its both possible that your son isn't guilty of sexual harassment and that the administration is not being overly sensitive with this matter. What your son said sounds fairly innocent and you as his caregiver would probably know that best after talking to him, at the same time you can't account for all the other children that attend the school or grant that a teacher will be as insightful about your son's tone or meaning. Hypothetically a child in a similar position could have said "I like her bum" and have as much innocence potentially, it is just another human body part, or can be to individuals, just adult society at large generally tends to be aware that part of the body is a bit more sexualized. Then with that in mind a lot more adults would generally feel a little bit uncomfortable or perplexed at children talking to them that way.

If I were in this situation, I would probably call or met with the administration and teacher and just explain that I talked to my child and that what they said was sincerely innocent, and that they don't quite realize what all the fuss is about, but that I also spoke to them about what can be appropriate and inappropriate ways to address others and that you can understand if the teacher may have felt uncomfortable in such a situation and apologize on behalf of my son.

Do you know if the other children's remarks were addressed? The ones who said they liked her hair and pants? That could be a factor as well. I have a sister who I essentially raised as a daughter, she is 12 now, a few years ago had to talk to her about swear words, since I discovered kids in her class were started to share this secret knowledge. I am one of those a word is just a word types, and so my sister has a similar, simpler approach as well (which helps her as far as others bullying or teasing her) but she also had to understand that certain ways and addressing other individuals can be considered inappropriate even if her intent isn't inappropriate, and how thats important as far as real life as she may not always interact with individuals or groups of people who have the same attitudes or approaches to life and words as her, so its important to always be mindful of the context of a situation and to help avoid offending people, context dependent. The ability to discern context at a young age isn't necessary the greatest so I tried to instill to my sister that its better to approach people being a bit more polite until she gets older and can be more choosy about how she chooses to address others.

Good luck either way!

Moderator
#2 Posted by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio
@samuel90 said:

you don't know much about comics do you.

Hello. This thread is for discussion about "Deathpool and Dark Claw" and not users speculation or accusations towards others. Please make sure in the future to keep discussion firmly focused on the characters and not other users. Cheers.

Moderator
#3 Posted by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

@netshyster said:

@sc: Do you know what a joke is?

Doesn't matter what I know is a joke or not, it is what other users you interact with know. If they know your joking then they do, if they don't, then be more careful thanks.

Moderator
#4 Edited by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

@teerack: @killraven4334: Hello. No personal insults or calling other fans/users, stupid, young, teenage, fool and so on. Avoid it please.

Also killraven4334 one of your posts was deleted, it contained inappropriate terminology which isn't allowed at CV. CV has a no swearing policy, and not as stringent but please be careful about throwing around certain words like "slut" too much context depending. The request here is to try and be more thoughtful and mindful of other posters. The main thing though is no swearing.

If either of you have questions feel free to PM me, off topic replies will be deleted, so will posts that are/contain insults towards others. Thanks.

Moderator
#5 Posted by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

@referee: No worries, just try and remember for the future. You take care and have a great day! ^_^.

Moderator
#6 Edited by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

Moderator
#7 Posted by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

@referee: Sorry friend but you really cannot be posting such graphic depictions of violence. Try to remember that for the future please. Too violent a image/GIFs aren't allowed. Thanks.

Moderator
#8 Edited by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

@black_arrow said:

@willpayton said:

I agree with Dawkins. If i was going to have a baby and I found out that it was going to be defective, I'd rather abort and try again. A pregnancy is a potential child, not an actual child. Why would I willingly want to bring a defective child into the world and then have to care for it for a long time, and have it have a poor quality of life, when it's possible to just terminate it and try again for one without defects?

But why is it immoral? I get why someone would want to abort because it seems the most logical choice but what I don´t understand is why is it immoral?

Possibly immoral in the same sense that there are many parents out there that deny children getting medical treatment that will allow them to have improved vision or audio awareness because they have certain principles and ideas to do with whats "normal" or not and so by allowing treatment that would increase child's sense's and perceptions would be an admission somehow of that child being less than or that audio or visually impaired individuals are less than, or abnormal. Where as to some thats just immoral because its a person projecting or exporting their own views directly on to their children who could benefit and could enjoy more of life than they could individually otherwise. Its nothing to do with whats normal or abnormal, just about improving the life quality of each person where possible, especially as far as in practice where relatively cost expensive and practical) cost effective, easy to implement, etc) - there are differences with this situation though because still addressing one individual and the ranges of experience they could potentially experience as opposed to two different individuals with differences.

Moderator
#9 Edited by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

Tricky subject to talk about in an open public forum, this is because its human nature to project and assume. Well, not just human nature, but necessity as far as individuals having to navigate and traverse through reality, to assume and project certain ideas as relatively concrete as to effectively apply ourselves. So when a person says that they would opt for abortion if their would be child were to fulfill certain criteria, its a very natural and typical response for people to think about that criteria and realize how many individuals fit that perceived criteria and then to take the original individuals statements as that all those that met that criteria are less than or should have be been aborted or are less than - and in some cases that might be accurate but not all cases, sometimes its really just acknowledging that potential life is try different from actual life.

There was movie a wile back called The One. It starred Jet Li. Spoilers ahead - its about the multiverse and the idea that if a person kills an alt reality self they gain more power and if they kill all their alt reality selves off they being the last one get to be The One, an uber powerful version of themselves. The good Jet Li has to fight a bad Jet Li who is killing off normal Jet Li's, The Bad Jet Li also kills the Good Jet Li's wife, but is eventually stopped, and the ending has multiverse police sending good Jet Li to a new alt reality where he can met… an alt reality version of his wife. Now the ending was probably intending to be good… but Good Jet Li's wife still died, and the new alt Wife wasn't his actual wife, so why would this be a good ending? Yeah I know she looks like her, sounds like her and probably has similar life memories and experiences but its not his wife, she was killed and he was just a stranger to her. I mean it would be creepy if he tried to replicate past wife experiences with the new girl. Not only that but the individual who loved him and shared experiences with him? She's dead! So why is he happy for having met another? So did Good Jet Li love his actual wife or the idea of his wife? This might seem very irrelevant but its the same with children.

I could find a woman and seduce her with my excessively long posts and sexy Kiwi accent (I so totally could, stop making fun of me) and we could pop out dozens and dozens of children and each would I would love and do my best to make sure were healthy, productive, wonderful and amazing people, but just because I don't do that, doesn't mean I think they shouldn't exist or don't deserve life. Its easy to imagine what could be, but understanding what is and the differences between the two are very important. There are some parents who have children who have types of physical limitations that would be referred to as disabilities but with modern technology and medication easy solutions or ways to treat (hearing/deafness and so on) and some parents opt for that so their children can experience what might be closer to a normal experience for most humans, but many parents are adverse to that because of the idea that there is nothing "wrong" with being deaf or hearing impaired. For some others its not a matter of whats "right" or "wrong" but viewing the ability to hear as an experience that enriches an individuals life in more ways than not. Thats not to say that they think deaf or hearing impaired individuals are less so, its about what is, what could be and the gap in-between and the choices people have rights for.

I like Richard Dawkings and am familiar with his ideas and opinions, enough to say with confidence when I make assumptions about what he means i tend to be more accurate than others, Dawkings is a staunch atheist for example but one that has explained that if he were born in the past he most likely would have been religious. Or to put it another way, if you asked Dawkings if he lived 600 years ago and had the choice of having an atheist child or religious child he would probably say a religious child as they would be safer and face less persecution (depending on where they lived) because in that hypothetical he would think about things in a practical and actual way, rather than project ideas about whether it means atheists are less than. Or that atheists who are already living are less than. So its about how people approach ideas and Dawkings is very practical and rational, almost to the point of seeming cold, insensitive or immoral. So when I read his initial comment as presented by the OP, I read it as he later would go on to clarify. Its just a more extreme approach than is taken in contrast by parents who would rather keep children, deaf or blind out of the principle that its okay to be deaf and blind and therefore possibly allowing them to experience more is unacceptable. Dawkings is a bit older as well, so its also possible he attaches more of a stigma to certain physical/mental limitations or hindrances than others, and how society would treat individuals, but who knows, I spent a good deal of my time assisting those with mental and physical impairments and barriers and see first hand they are treated poorly by society and even loved ones. Dawkins may simply be trying to ensure that his children have all the best chances of finding happiness in this world which I don't have a problem with. He might love any child he has, but that its more fair to invest in a child that can experience life in a way that a child with Downs Syndrome would not. So its not saying anything about people who exist and do have Downs Syndrome or parents that felt that their child would be happy and successful and enjoy life. At least how I perceive what he said.

Personally I wouldn't have to face a dilemma myself (most likely) because personally I rather not have my own biological children, I would rather adopt a child because I actually wouldn't want to bring in a new life to this world, potential hypothetical life is great and all, physically we are driven to think that as well, but I rather improve the quality of life for a person and people that already exist. As far as adoption I would be open to any individuals but then again thats a different situation than birth/abortion. Thats not me saying automatically that my potential hypothetical biological children aren't deserving of life, I just don't think hypothetical potential people are inherently deserving of life, but when people have sex, and a seed is planted, for some reason our ideas on what that person will be suddenly start making them more than they actually are (and again for very good biological reasons, if we didn't do that we wouldn't be around to talk about all this on the internet) but thats biology and psychology and for people who are very scientific and rational when it comes to decision making, the elimination of natural biases is one of the first things sought to be eliminated in favor of fair, objective and reasonable ideas. As in we (those types of people) recognize that Jet Li's wife is a very different person than an alt reality woman that happens to be the "same" as his wife. Just like there could be hundreds of woman like his wife but none that will actually be his wife. People exist and that are alive are usually and naturally biased towards existence and life but only to certain degrees as controlled by our biology. Again, we don't get warm emotional fuzzy's about the dozens and dozens of children we could potentially have in a strict biological sense… even though they all would presumably be awesome people. We are generally adapted to be more invested in one or two or a few, especially when we start sticking our interesting physical bits together with other people.

Sorry long post, just a really interesting topic and posts so far.

Moderator
#10 Posted by SC (12914 posts) - - Show Bio

A. A retired American professional basketball player.

B. A Coldplay song.

C. A trading card game.

D. A perception, or alternatively something people think is a thing when they don't understand that science is not some book of what was or is but a tool, and a process that is applied with a basis in logic. So magic is usually for characters that lack the means to understand how something works and so its magical. Alternatively some characters and fiction, magic is just implemented when there is stuff going on that can be harnessed and practiced but not entirely understood. Spirit stuff, stuff that is beyond human comprehension. In this sense a black hole is magic. So can depend a bit on what your definitions/applications of reality, science, logic are. So science isn't just about laws, or observed facts, but theories and hypothesis and experiment. Laws are also conditional, as far as this will happen with these conditions, rather than this will always happen universally because a law said so. Eh its more complicated than that but yeah. Its great fun in fiction because humans often like to disagree, and magic is a great catalyst for that, especially when there are types of magic. Adventure Time had a great episode about it a few months back.

Moderator