OK, hold on, where do we get that? I kind of remember what I was like those four decades ago: first grade, yeah, I think those spectres were prettymuch gone from my creduliset by that age, and I was even a good christian in those days. If a six or seven year old child believes in Santa and the Pillow Pixie, I would think they were having developmental issues. It was probably time for that bubble to pop anyway, if it was still holding.
That’s not your decision to make, though.
However, if this principle overrides others, it means that I can use children to be as offensive as I want, and no one has any means of response. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: the kid has “privileged speech” which is immune from rebuttal.
Also: training children to hyper-sensitivity is also a fallacious tactic. The child can go up to you and say, “You’re going to HELL!” and if I say, “No, kid, you’re wrong,” he bursts into tears. Once again, this would allow evil people to exploit children for evil purposes, and would deny any recourse.
He didn’t shout in the kid’s face. He didn’t cuss. He simply rejected what the kid came forward, unsolicited, to say to him. We retain that right.
I see your point, and I do not disagree with it. However, some times, people do use children as “human shields” – sometimes literally, as in the case of a man who was holding a baby in his arms…while at the same time firing a gun at policemen outside his window. The police returned fire, wounded the man, and killed the baby.
My view is that sometimes, this is simply what you have to do when someone uses a child as a weapon. I would not take pleasure in hurting the child. I also would not surrender my right of free speech because a child has engaged me in debate.
In the case described, the response was polite, phrased in clinical language, and delivered without overt emotion. The kid himself over-reacted; bursting into tears is not an appropriate response to a measured rebuttal. It indicates that the kid is not yet mature enough to be used as a proselytizer.
The wrong-doing is entirely on the side of the people exploiting the child to act in a confrontational manner. Rebutting such confrontation must remain permitted speech.
ETA: vaguely depressing: first time I’ve ever disagreed with you!
Whose, then? Is Grandma somehow more qualified to decide when her grandchildren should hear the truth? How am I to tell what I should or should not say in front (earshot) of any given child? They learn stuff when they learn stuff.
In the end, certainty tends to be dodgy ground, teaching kids to have doubts and ask questions is a good thing. If their parents shelter them, they will end up getting uncertainty from various strangers. One of them could be alphaboi867, or maybe me.
Sorry to let you down, but you haven’t disagreed with me. You said:
This is nearly precisely what I’ve said. All I’ve objected to is the gleefulness at causing pain to the child.
I would think one would approach it like Atticus Finch putting the dog down. Somber regret even if you are the best shot in town.
Let down? Heck, I’m happy and much relieved!
I’ve been in exactly that position. (Cat, dying nastily of cancer, much of its face gone. Not our cat, I hasten to add; it wandered on to our property, and it fell to me to do what was necessary.)
My uncle once said to a lawyer, “I’ve shot cats I liked better than you.” Ah, country living…
I understand that’s how our government feels about parents and guardians teaching their children. Thus we have legal homeschooling.
Yes, I think there might have been a thread that touched on that subject recently.
I don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.
Then you did not read that thread. There were numerous anecdotes of the gross failures of homeschooling. AFAICT, it is not a “program”, rather, some parents who feel that copulation qualifies them as educators. At least the rest of us do not have to deal with their folly :rolleyes:
Many religions don’t evangelize, I respect that. So you think you have the inside track on a divine certainty and it’ll pay off if you do the dance, great. I try to emulate that for my lack of belief, but don’t always succeed. It’s not that I want people to not be happy believing whatever makes them feel happy, they just don’t see the cost. And that bothers me and compels me to confrontation.
Hmmmmm, but somehow I suspect that you’d have no problem with another adult telling my children that other supernatural beings do exist.
Tell me if I’m wrong here.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, you’re wrong. Again, my problem was his whole glee at telling the kid Santa didn’t exist.
MY feeling is that religious beliefs/non-belief are a very personal issue, and you shouldn’t presume to push your’s on others. That being said, there are times when it’s not worth the effort to argue with some people. I’d consider a customer at a grocery store one of them. Take her pamphlet and then toss it. Not worth my time. If she keeps bugging me, go to managment.
But there’s no way I’m going to go and be snarky to her kid. THAT crosses the line. No matter WHAT they’re trying to push on me, whether it’s religious beliefs or magazine sales. (If it’s Girl Scout cookies, I might even buy some. Those things are like crack)
I can see that, but I can’t see where he expressed “glee.”
Haven’t read the thread, but I did search to check that he hadn’t been mentioned: The last, great Roger Ebert.
A strongly opinionated man (it was pretty much a part of the job) but otherwise humble and modest.
Y u hate Christians, Guin?
Well, he DID use a biggrin smilie in the post where he told us the anecdote…
Which, I guess would technically be glee about telling a bunch of people about the time he told a kid that Santa didn’t exist.
(spoilered just in case somebody’s kid reads this post) 
:rolleyes:
All I’m saying is: don’t pick on little kids because you don’t like what their parents are doing. Even IF they’re using their kid as a pawn. It just makes you a dick.
He expressed glee here - there is no evidence he expressed glee at the time. In fact he said that it slipped out, and was not planned. And the glee he expressed could just as well have been about saying there was no god.
Giving an honest answer to a kid is not picking on the kid. And while I wouldn’t have mentioned Santa, you don’t know the kid wouldn’t have had the same reaction if he just said that God doesn’t exist. In fact I rather expect that in his family God is more important than Santa.