From: J Corbally (icorb@indigo.ie)
Date: Fri Jul 11 2003 - 16:46:31 MDT
Looking through the website, I was stuck with how poorly they seem to
articulate what it is exactly they are proposing/practicing.
Also, I see a lot of talk about non-coercion, yet very little tangible
strategy for dealing with the myriad of problems that would arise. My
understanding is that most children are simply not equiped to deal with a
situation where no framework of reasonable discipline is applied.
I don't trust some adults to make "adult" decisions. I'd trust most
children even less. How does this system equip children for a world in
which no matter how much they say they won't be "coerced", they have to
cooperate to achieve their aims? What would they do where cooperation or
compromise are not possible?
It'd be interesting to see what sorts of people these children
become. Wouldn't fancy potty training them, though.
James...
>Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Peter C. McCluskey" <pcm@rahul.net>
>Subject: Taking Children Seriously
>hal@finney.org (Hal Finney) writes:
> >Deutsch also links to an organization, Taking Children Seriously,
> >http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/, dedicated to the principle that "it is
> >possible and desirable to bring up children entirely without doing things
> >to them against their will, or making them do things against their will,
> >and that they are entitled to the same rights, respect and control over
> >their lives as adults."
>I found this site quite interesting. I was surprised at the degree to
>which they are able to use a Popperian approach to conclude that popular
>dogmas about children are cruel.
>I generally agree that children should be treated as rational beings,
>and that disagreements between adults and children should cause us to
>suspect a disagreement in goals rather than that the children are being
>foolish and need to have the adults' opinions forced on them.
>The "Gateway Religions" essay at
>http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tcs/Articles/KSGatewayReligions.html
>is particularly amusing: "Look for the following DANGER SIGNS that
>may indicate your child has been using religion".
>But I'm unconvinced by the TCS claims about what obligations parents
>have towards their children, as illustrated by this attitude towards
>carnivorous children:
>The vegetarian who believes that meat eating ought to be legal ought
>to buy it for their child and give them the respect they would give
>another human being.
>I didn't see any argument that this view is better than the more standard
>view that the parental payment for the food gives them substantial
>authority to influence what their children eat, just as it would if they
>were feeding adult friends. Did anyone see an argument that I missed?
>- --
>-
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Peter McCluskey | "To announce that there must be no criticism of
>http://www.rahul.net/pcm | the President, or that we are to stand by the
>| President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
>| and servile, but morally treasonable to the
>| American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
>------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 11 2003 - 16:51:25 MDT