You can arrest the child in the first case, not the second case. The former is easily determined by the local statutes, the latter is not.
There is near-universal agreement that stealing candy is wrong, and helpfully, it’s illegal. There is nowhere near universal agreement that these acts constitute “animal abuse” that is unambiguously wrong.
But no matter – if the kid’s parents are there, then direct your commentary to them, not to him. It’s not for you to teach morality to someone else’s kid.
It is a fact of life that our children are exposed to propaganda from a very young age. From fast food commercials specifically targeted at them, to the proselytizing parents of their friends, to teachers in schools. I would much prefer to take these things as teachable moments rather than try to shut down discourse in the world when a kid might get involved. There are two reasons for this. First, it is totally impossible to screen out every commercial, every stranger, every disagreeable thought. And second, this discourse-ending view bleeds into everything else. What do you want the PETA guy to do? Not approach anyone at the circus with a child? Not be at the circus at all?
A four-year-old is not at the right age for a discussion of critical thinking. But a four-year-old can understand that strangers sometimes disagree with Mommy and Daddy–as this kid clearly did!
Why are those distinctions relevant to what a person should be allowed to communicate within the bounds of “appropriateness?” Suppose you’re on an airplane and in front of you sits a man and his child. Every time the black stewardess comes down the aisle, the man mutters some racial slurs. Is it not appropriate to chastise the man in front of his child? To tell the child that his Father is doing something wrong? It’s not illegal to use a racial slur, so your distinction above is unavailing.
Again, there might be some good line to draw there. But it isn’t about legal vs. illegal.
To clarify: as I said in the first post, I’m against training them for entertainment. I don’t think the tricks are at all part of their natural repertoire of behaviors, nor do I think they will cooperate solely from positive reinforcement.
Zoos often (?) at least try to give them a natural environment, probably do better with veterinary care, don’t ship them all over, etc. They can serve the purpose of educating people…circuses are really about profit motive.
Right. Although I think PETA is right in that animals are mistreated, assailing a child who doesn’t understand the issues isn’t cool. Giving parents the information and leaving it at that is much better, IMO. And there are other ways it could be done, e.g. taking out ads in the media.
Right, and zoos aren’t perfect but they have legitimate aims such as you mention.
Whereas my parents might have thought the circus was all that, it never held any fascination for me. The older generations didn’t have television, so a chance to see exotic animals and such was an uber big deal. A lot of people still have a fondness for them, but if they knew what went on behind the scenes, I suspect they’d think twice.
So to recap, I agree with PETA’s position on circuses but not with the tactics described by the OP.
So as long as there’s near universal agreement with my political view, it is appropriate to espouse it? I submit that this too cannot be the distinction.
You’re begging the question.
Of course not. The point is that the parent should be the target of your information campaign, not the kids. In the OP the PETA guy was engaging the child, when he should have been engaging the parent. If the parent is not receptive, then move on, becuase bypassing the parent to go to the kid is not going to be productive.
BTW, at this protests, there are signs and displays (at the one I go to the displays are NOT grotesque or inappropriate by any stretch of the imagination) and I think this is fair and the right way to let the child’s curiosity allow him or her to engage their parents.
What is different about a PETA guy handing a kid a pamphlet and McDonald’s advertising Happy Meals to kids of the same age? Maybe my assumption is wrong, and all of you calling this inappropriate also think that things like toy commercials are inappropriate. If so, let me know.
Granted that there is ‘propaganda’ in everything these days (by which I presume you mean of the marketing variety mostly). But by and large (outside of school) this is impersonal type propaganda. It isn’t (potentially) physically dangerous.
As to what I want the PETA guy to do (well, this won’t be an exhaustive list ;))…I want him to grow some common sense. You don’t approach a child in the manner described by the OP, and certainly not at a circus like that. Not only is it rude but it’s damaging to their supposed cause. What I want the PETA guy to do is to make himself available to BE approached (if he really must) if that is the desire of the folks walking about. Hold up a big sign and have the tracts ready to hand if someone ASKS for them. I certainly don’t think it’s cool for him to approach anyone on his own…and certainly not a child.
I will say the same goes for anyone pushing any agenda…even one I agree with. Like I said, how would you feel if someone approached your kid to give them a tract on the joys of religion? How about if they wanted to give your child something on how the Jews control the world, or how Blacks (or Hispanics, or Asians, or Mongolians, etc etc) are doing blah blah blah and umptysquat? Or on some other subject you don’t care about or find distasteful? Personally, I don’t want ANY stranger coming up to my children and trying to hand them ANYTHING. If you have something you want my kids to see give it too ME…until they are old enough to decide for themselves that’s MY job to decide.
But it’s not a strangers place to interject their opinions into a discussion concerning my kids opinions. Whether the kid in question can understand the ramifications or not, it’s not a strangers place to try and insert themselves into the process of someone else’s family.
-XT
Well, a couple of things. First off, I doubt that McDonald’s is out accosting children and forcing pamphlets concerning Happy Meals on them at the circus. The advertising they are most likely getting is passive, through the TV…a TV which I can turn off if I really don’t want them to see something. And that same TV could be a medium through which our charming PETA guy could also make his own case (PETA could buy advertising just like anyone else if they really wanted too…I’ve seen Sierra Club advertising in the past, and there is a whole channel devoted to green type issues…Planet Green, which my own kids watch btw).
The second difference is between a product (a Happy Meal) and and idea (or opinion). There is a rather large difference between these two concepts.
-XT
…er, did you not believe the AKC? Wikipedia isn’t exactly one to “confirm” anything.
Physically dangerous? You’re talking about the risk of the pamphlet having some infectious disease on it? That seems like a stretch to me. The kid is going to touch all kinds of far dirtier things in the course of a day. Use some hand sanitizer.
I don’t have any quibble with the argument that this might be counter-productive to his cause. I’m sure it is. I’m trying to argue that, as a society, we should not attempt to end this kind of public discourse because public acceptance of the ability to walk up and talk to people in a public place is critical to democracy. I’m sure that most of you would argue that this should be legal, you just think it should be shunned and is wrong. Well, I think it’s a short distance between shunning free speech and failing to protect it. That you would include in your statement people other than children is part of what alarms me about this view–it starts with kids and inevitable expands beyond them. I think we’re better off as a society embracing the free exchange of ideas, and then going back home with our kids and educating them as we see fit.
That is the very hypothetical I was answering. In a free society, our children will be exposed to all that and more. And I recognize that in the long run sheltering my child is a less successful strategy than using these instances as teachable moments. If by “appropriate” we just mean something like “we would prefer it didn’t happen,” then I’m on board. But then giving me parking tickets is also inappropriate in that sense. But if by “appropriate” we mean something society should shun, then I disagree. We should embrace free discourse over the alternative.
You cannot keep your kid from seeing McDonald’s ads. It is impossible. You can turn off the TV and throw out all the radios, you can even prohibit your child from going to friend’s homes, but short of blind-folding your kid whenever you’re in a public area, they will be advertised to. And I submit that having a spokesman talk on a TV, or in an advertisement, is no more passive than handing a pamphlet. It’s just newer technology. Indeed, it is far more powerful, more persuasive technology.
Advertisements are trying to get you to hold an opinion about a product. Holding an opinion about a product is no different from holding an opinion about an idea. McDonald’s is telling your child to eat meat. That Fast Food is an appropriate dietary choice. Etc. etc. There is no relevant distinction.
What stated goals did you find for PETA that are different from the HSUS?
And you would know this guy wasn’t physically dangerous how exactly? Got a medical scanner and a host of psychological profilers in your hip pocket do you?
You are of course free to risk your own kids in that way. I’m sure the hand sanitizer will be a big comfort if the guy is psychotic and kills them…or if he is one of those types who doesn’t believe in immunization. Or has any number of other problems. Please leave me and mine out of it though.
I disagree emphatically that someone else has some kind of right to interject their opinion onto my children and I’m unsure how you think this is somehow an infringement or slippery slope wrt freedom of speech.
So, you are cool with strangers approaching your children to interject their opinions or propaganda on them without your say so? Regardless of the subject matter? You feel that you, the parent, really should have no say so?
Again, I don’t see how my decision as a parent to shield my children from potential harm (physical or emotional) or to choose for them in their formative years what they should or shouldn’t be exposed too is an infringement on freedom of speech. Maybe you could go into some details as to why or how it would be an infringement. I’m a pretty big freedom of speech guy and I’m not seeing it.
I disagree that the two are analogous. And as the parent I can of course have a very direct impact on those McDonald’s ads…I can choose not to take my children to McDonald’s and buy them happy meals. By the same token, in my reality I can also prevent the PETA guy from accosting my children to hand them pamphlets but some fairly direct means if he becomes a pest. This in no way prohibits our friendly PETA man’s freedom of speech of course (though it might be hard for him to talk for a while with a broken jaw, depending on how vigorous his accosting actually was, or how much of a threat I though he might be).
The equivalent for McDonald’s in terms of what I understand your position to be wrt the PETA guy would be that I’d have little or no say in if my kids got McNuggets, since by preventing them from getting them I’d be denying a basic right to McDonald’s in selling their dubious treats.
Even if true, I, as the parent, am the final arbiter of that. To paraphrase our former (YEAH!) President…I am the Decider! McDonald’s has to rely on me as the medium through which my children enjoy the wonders of McNuggets. PETA guy had BETTER go through me as the arbiter of whether or not his pamphlet gets into their grubby little hands as well.
-XT
I guess we just have very different worldviews, xtisme. The above strikes me as pure paranoia. Everywhere I’ve ever lived, being in physical proximity of strangers is just a fact of life. I guess if I really wanted to I could create a 5-foot security zone and shuttle my kids around in a little pope-mobile or something, but being concerned about a PETA guy using pamphlets as a way to get close to and attack my child is about at the bottom of the list of risks I’m concerned about.
Again, let’s distinguish someone’s right from the appropriateness of exercising it in certain contexts. I was assuming you recognize their First Amendment right to do this free from the government making it illegal, do you not?
Your decision to shield your child has nothing to do with free speech. Leaving a public place is a good response to not wanting your child to hear public discourse. But yours and others threats of violence against lawful political activists has a lot to do with free speech. You can’t hold yourself up as a big proponent of free speech but then say you’ll assault someone who exercises it.
And in exactly the same way, you can choose to give money to PETA or not. You can decide to go or not to go to the circus. Your ability to control McDonald’s advertising is exactly the same as your ability to control PETA’s message.
Perhaps “appropriateness” is just an empty concept, that ultimately means what we’d prefer other people do. If that’s so, then I’d prefer that everyone else believed in evolution, wasn’t racist, and thought torture was wrong. Just like I’d prefer that my very young children not be exposed to some ideas before they are old enough to evaluate them. But I think appropriateness means something beyond our personal preferences. It refers to a broader societal more, and we should consider the social effects of shunning people that fall outside that more. Because of that, I think it is wrong to categorically state that it is never appropriate to expose someone else’s child to an idea. That seems to me to be an absurdly narrow view of what is appropriate, and a view that is not consistently applied across the board by its advocates.
How would you feel if while your child was standing in line to sit on Santa’s knee, a fellow went down the line telling the children that there is no Santa, and that fellow in the red suit up there is just an old drunk?
Let’s make it an even more biting hypo. Suppose I’ve just left a funeral and some atheist comes up and tell my kid that grandpa isn’t in heaven because there’s no such thing.
My answer is that what makes these inappropriate is the purpose of the speaker. They’re being malicious. They are trying to cause emotional harm.
And to be clear, again, I’m not arguing that it is always appropriate to speak to a child in a public place. I’m merely refuting the argument that it is never appropriate, or that the appropriateness may vary with whether we personally agree with the speaker.
If you think for a moment that the advertiser is not trying like hell to implant ideas and opinions in your child, you are being naive.
So, you basically think it’s equivalent for me to teach them, say, the joys of Creationism as for me to attempt to sell them McNuggets? For me to give them a pamphlet and a lecture on how Kennedy was Assassinated by an evil Alien/Government conspiracy is roughly the same as trying to sell them on a brand new Transformer?
If you have your kid at the inauguration and I randomly come up to him or her and try to give them a pamphlet (without your approval) about how black people are really racially inferior or how Obama is the anti-Christ (or whatever the hell a loony right wing type might want to peddle about him at his inauguration), you are cool with that and consider that on par with trying to sell them on a new Hi C flavored juice box, ehe?
-XT
The point is that you cannot make a distinction based on which act is seeking to implant opinions. Both are.
In the post above, you come up with a new distinction: the content of the opinion. So now you’re saying it’s OK to implant opinions in other people’s kids, but just ones about their dietary habits and what toys they want to play with. Not the really important ones like whether or not to go to the circus.
We then have different world views. C’est la vie. To me, it’s not pure paranoia. To my mind physical proximity does not equal coming up to hand them something. That is invasion of my families private space. Some times that isn’t possible, but I become rather tense when someone deliberately chose to so invade.
You are of course free to raise and protect your children as you see fit. If you feel the risk is slight, well, more power to you and hope that works out well for you. It’s your right to allow anyone into as close a proximity to them as you like. Personally, I’d rather keep the wild eyed at more than arms length from them myself, but it’s a free world. Well, at least a free country.
Of course. They have every right to make their information available…just as I have the right to decide what my children are exposed too. Since we are refining this question down, I assume you acknowledge my rights as a parent. IIRC you are a lawyer, so you should recognize I have a legal right to do so as long as my children have not assumed their majority…correct?
I can if they invade my personal space. Or do I have no rights? This sort of gets into the shouting fire in a public building question. If the guy is standing on a street corner babbling his non-sense, assuming he isn’t in any violation of the law, then he has ever right to do so, and I’d be in the wrong to attempt to stop him (though as a private citizen I wouldn’t be violating his freedom of speech rights…I’d simply be breaking the law in another way). Conversely he has no right to force his pamphlets on me or my children against my own will. And I have the right to prevent him from doing so up to and including the use of force if necessary. Obviously I’m glossing over a lot here, and the amount of force used would be determined by the given situation…too much force for a given situation and I WOULD be doing something illegal.
Or are you saying that because he has free speech he has the right to do so? If so it seems a pretty slippery slope to me.
Not at all because I don’t have McDonald’s representatives attempting to hand out propaganda at Burger King telling my kids that the animals used to make up the Burger King equivalent of McNuggets (assuming they have such a thing) were processed in such a way as to cause undue anguish to the chickens.
And if there WAS such a representative from McDonald’s I’d be equally outraged if they tried to hand my daughter a pamphlet (or even a coupon good for free McNuggets) without my permission. My problem isn’t with the message (though I’m no fan of PETA and think they are by and large a bunch of loons), it’s with the method of message delivery. See the difference?
Here is the thing. I decide what ‘messages’ my children get or don’t get when they are in their early years. As they grow older (I have children who are now in their 20’s, and mid and early teens) I allow them to branch out on their own, to find and learn new things, moving more into the role of Question Answerer™. But when they are still toddlers or young children I decide what they are exposed too…at least to the extent that any parent can do so these days (I have some advantages at least wrt my own home network and internet systems and access).
-XT