You’re calling reductio ad absurdum and the Law of the Excluded Middle logical fallacies. :dubious:
You’ve lost the argument. Whatever the merits of your position may be, once you say something as absurd as what you just said, you lose all credibility as a participant in the debate.
-FrL-
I’ve been lurking in this thread for quite some time - I’ve really been enjoying it. Since having my kid, my career advancement has not only slowed down (I was recently informed that even if I telecommute, I probably won’t be considered for advancement like I would if I didn’t, but I understand), but I now have to take work home to keep up with my regular workload. In my experience, the people around here who have kids take work home almost every night and on weekends and only get around to it around 8:30 or 9, when the kids are in bed, working until 12 or 12:30. So, in my experience, people in corporate jobs with kids often work just as much as the childless, but at different hours and for less advancement.
Also, I think the term breeder is offensive because it implies a significant amount of disdain for people who have made the choice to have children. It also implies that not having kids is somehow superior to having them. I’ve never understood why one is better than the other - both have their upsides and downsides. I also dislike people who look down on me for lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with them.
Where did the term come from anyway? A friend of mine used to call me a breeder once she came out of the closet (we weren’t friends for much longer afterwards because of other similar comments she made based on my orientation), so I had always assumed it was used as a counterpart insult to “queer” within the gay community. I suppose that assumption is incorrect or it’s grown into more popular usage.
First time I heard it was in the gay community and yes it was a counter to queer, fag, homo etc. But my straight kid-free friends immediately took it and I really haven’t heard it used in the gay community much since. The gay community’s pretty good at self-policing denigrative terms and there are plenty of sensitive gay parents ready to smack their fellow gays. You think straight parents are touchy? Don’t piss off gay parents.
Well, I tried it with arguments designed solely to make me sound wrong, but it wasn’t very appealing somehow. 
You’re both right. My statement was written badly. And was quite unnecessary to the argument. My only point was to counter fessie’s argument:
To that end, I was just arguing that there are societies whose point is not to welcome more kids. So it was unnecessary for me to say that the society in China functions as all other societies function. What I meant was that the Chinese society IS a society, regardless of how it functions in comparison to others. And it being a society and not having as their point to welcome kids, fessie’s point was false.
I wasn’t trying to make the argument that the Chinese society is better for its policies. Having said that, better is a relative term and we can only judge that from an ethno-centric position which was part of my point. Societies don’t necessarily have a specific point to them unless we judge them based on our view of what that purpose is.
Ah, I see. I didn’t get that from the way that your point was written. Perhaps it would have been clearer if you had said that “some people believe that”. . .
After all, some people believe that extraterrestrials are here on the planet as we speak and some people believe that the rapture is imminent. There are people who believe all kinds of stuff. It doesn’t make it right or true.
I couldn’t agree more. And I especially agree with that statement in regards to this thread. It’s a simple thread about children making noise in a public place.
So if you had said, for instance, that it was your experience (in your community in this particular culture, time and place) with your child that people allowed you leeway for your child to yell and scream for long periods of time in public places, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’ve noticed that tendency myself with kids and parents in my own community.
But when people start talking about rights and societies and the purposes of societies as support for their own experiences, then I think the discussion has turned into a theoretical one and that theoretical rebuttal is fair game. . . if only to point out the absurdity of the claims that children making noise have any justification over and above people trying to be decent and civil in this society at this point in time, which is a privilege, not a right.
Yes, I am. And while I may be mistaken about this (I don’t doubt it. I’m not a philosophy expert as you have claimed to be), since you haven’t shown it to be false, I’ll reserve judgment on it.
Since you’ve already jumped into this discussion earlier, clearly taking a side in it, I think I’ll discount your objective opinion (by about 100% 
) in regards to this “debate” (such that it is).
Further, if the ways that you judge a debate is to look at one side and see if they make a mistake to see if the other side wins, then you must think that Kirk Cameron won his “debate” since the opponents made several errors in their argument. If so, good luck with the crocoduck theory and get thee to a (fundamentalist christian) church!
First, imho, there is a big difference between a baby/toddler, and a child who is old enough to mind to some reasonable degree. I believe I’ve stated that before, but if not, there it is. I really don’t consider a 4 year old a toddler. And 3 is pushing it a bit. But again, on a plane, I can understand a meltdown and that 3 and 4 are not so far past toddler-hood that it may happen. NOT so in places where the child can and should be removed.
1.) Again, based upon having impressed the need for good, or at least adequate behaviour, upon one’s child as a matter of longstanding practice. And then putting into effect any method used on prior non-airplane instances. Such as, the hairy eyeball, distractions, psychological lessons. For instance the “well darn this is a bummer, we have to have peanut butter sandwiches (child’s least liked item that he/she will still eat if hungry) because you wouldn’t behave and let mommy shop…darn, and we could have had (child’s top favorite) instead”. That one only takes once or twice before the child learns not to mess with mom in the grocery store. Enlist the assistance of others in the family to reinforce the methods that work. If mom is always the bad guy, kids are darned smart, they’ll just attempt to manipulate the pushovers.
2.) If need be, throw the little monster over your shoulder and hike on down the aisle. I’ve seen it done, but luckily haven’t had to do it myself.
Neither of mine ever pulled tantrums on a plane, but I’ve been in the midst of toddler tantrum central, and I removed my little monster immediately, by straps of his OshKosh overalls like a little suitcase and to the applause from other post office patrons in one instance. 
When my daughter was 3, we flew to Hawaii (about a 7 hour flight), she wasn’t having tantrums, but she was wound like a clock and full of irrepressible energy for the entire flight. Until we hit the ground that is, she fell asleep as we were taxiing into the gate. Boy, you haven’t lived until you’ve tried to carry a sleeping 3 year old, carry-ons, and luggage through an airport all by your lonesome. Luckily we had a tailwind on the way back and she was tired out from the vacation and slept all the way…Whew!
She did however, have a ear-ache episode aboard a puddle jumper when she was about 10 months old. The crying was earsplitting and embarrassing, most everyone, except for the idiot guy next to us (my mom read him the riot act after about his 50th dirty look), was understanding.
My son was the tantrum thrower, and there were several memorable times when he was a toddler and even a preschooler that I had to leave a place or curtail something that would have been fun because of the need to remove him from the venue due to his behaviour.
That is what parenting IS. Yeah, it sucks sometimes, and I’m not the world’s greatest parent either, not even close, sometimes I rather resented it. But in addition to my duty as a parent, I took my duty to be considerate to OTHERS, where my child was concerned, seriously. It’s not everyone else’s responsibility or duty to put up with other people’s ill-behaving children, I had the kids, it’s a choice, not an involuntary condition or something, why should everyone else have to suffer through their brattiness?
I understand that there are going to be exceptions to the rule, that some children, such as yours may have medical issues that are behind their tantrums. But frankly with too many parents these days, that is not the case. It’s pure laziness and simply not caring. And with a lot of these people, they make it quite apparent that “little johnny, or jenny can do no wrong”.
And again, it’s those parents that folks in this thread are having issues with, or more to the point the cult of child worship attitude that goes along with it.
Without getting sidetracked into completely tangential discussions of China, do you think it is safe to say that “society” is a very vague term, and that no “society,” and certainly not 21st century Western society, can be described as uniformly as you have tried to describe it here?
There are multiple sub-societies, or communities, operating at once under the catchall of a larger one. Some sectors of society are indeed designed to welcome more kids. They tend to be kid-friendly and full of receptive, understanding (some of you would say “selfless,” but I’d say “similarly inclined”) folks. Some other sectors of society are not as welcoming, and those tend to be populated by people who are annoyed by the intrusion of your distinctly UNwelcome child. I don’t think it’s fair or warranted to say that one of these communities is better, morally superior, or more valuable than the other just because one appeals to you more than the other.
You very likely have to venture into territory that isn’t as friendly to your worldview, though, and respect is the key to navigating there. NOT expecting your personal situation to be privileged goes a long way towards this, and stating the purpose of “society” to “do” something is rather absurd and bound to lead to situations like the OP’s. This goes both ways, for childless people and for people with children.
Short story long, expecting society as a monolith, in all settings and situations, to welcome your kids is a wrong-headed, dare I say selfish, attitude? As selfish as is expecting not to have to listen to 10 minutes of screaming while quietly browsing in a bookstore. IOW, this is what I think Heffalump and Roo was trying to say but got completely off track. Maybe I’m wrong, and if so, I’m sure someone will be along posthaste to tell me so.
Who here is saying that the above quite normal childhood behaviours are some sort of proof that kids are bad?
I have seen no one in this thread (well except catsix, but she made no sense as usual), say that what makes children children; the captain underpants, the sometimes getting overtired and mom not noticing until it’s too late (had that one happen at the state fair, boy was that an adventure and embarrassing!), the mac n cheese for half a year straight etc, the non-bathing (or hairbrushing in my little sister’s case). is somehow bad or evil and means that they’ll be non-productive members of society.
What I DO see people saying is "yes, we understand that sometimes kids behave in a socially unacceptable way. However, when they do that to excess and in inappropriate places…ACT! Be a Parent! Take them out of the situation! Do not give us the “well, kids will be kids”, or “aww, isn’t that cute he’s sharing his mashed potatoes with your new suede skirt at this 5 star restaurant” or “oh, you must hate children” BS and continue to force others to be subjected to an ill-behaved child. Expecting respect and reasonable parenting duties from you (collective you) as a parent, and while out in public with your children, isn’t a slam against children or their normal behaviour.
There are proper places and times for kids, and there are proper times and places to step up, and even if it spoils your fun, you have to be the parent, not the buddy and not the irresponsible “lets one’s children run wild” cult of child worship disciple.
Heffalump and Roo
Let me be clear about something. I didn’t say your opponents have won the debate. I only said that you’ve lost.
Though I didn’t make this clear in my post, I happen to be of the opinion that it is entirely possible for both sides of a debate to lose. So just because I believe you have made crucial mistakes which tend to undermine your ability to further participate in the debate, it does not follow that I think you yourself have been proven wrong, or that your opponents have won the debate, or anything along such lines.
My point was that your post had undermined the trust that readers had had that you were arguing in good faith. The post made it appear you did not honestly understand where the fallacies in your interlocutors’ arguments lay, and that instead of either admitting this or doing the work to rectify your lack of understanding, rather you had decided to hide behind authoritative sounding phrases which you clearly did not actually understand. It appeared you hoped to intimidate your opponent into submission by any means, truthful or not. This is bad form.
Now I want to explain the meaning of the terms you were trying to use.
I am not relying on any “expertise” here, even though you attributed a claim of such expertise to me. (I doubt I’ve ever claimed expertise in anything. I certainly don’t feel like an expert of any sort.) I am a student of philosophy, to be sure, but this is irrelevant. It does not require expertise or even much study to know that what you said is wrong.
I am also not claiming “neutrality” or “lack of bias” with regard to this debate. I am claiming to have true information to impart about the proper use of certain terms, and I am claiming to know the correct way to evaluate your own contribution to the debate. The question whether I am “neutral” or “unbiased” is a red herring. One should look at my claims, and my arguments for them (if any), and evaluate their validity.
Reductio ad Absurdum is a valid argument form. Its structure is as follows. Suppose I want to prove that P. In order to do so by Reductio ad Absurdum, I start out by assuming (for the sake of argument, so to speak,) that not-P. I then attempt to derive a contradiction from this assumption. If I can show that some contradiction follows logically from not-P, then I have proven that not-P can not be true. And if not-P is not true, then it follows that P is true. So I have proven P, by Reductio ad Absurdum.
A simple, somewhat informal example. Imagine your friend tells you on one occasion that she only eats healthy foods. Imagine that on another day she tells you that hamburgers are unhealthy. And finally, imagine that on some other occasion, she reports that she’s just eaten a hamburger. In this case, we can prove, by reductio ad absurdum, that the three statements she has made can not all be true. For suppose they were all true. (Assuming not-P, in other words.) Then since (by our supposition) your friend only eats healthy, and (again, by our supposition,) hamburgers are not healthy, it follows that she does not eat a hamburger. But (by supposition again) she has eaten a hamburger. This is a contradiction–she both has and has not eaten a hamburger. Since we’ve derived a contradiction from our supposition that all your friend’s reports were true, we can conclude that not all her reports were true. Either she doesn’t only eat healthy, or hamburgers are healthy, or she did not eat a hamburger.
Another somewhat more formal example. Suppose there were only a finite number of integers. Then there would be some integer greater than all other integers. Call it N. But we know that for all integers M, M + 1 > M. So N + 1 > N. We also know that for all integers M, M + 1 is also an integer. So N + 1 is an integer. But this means that N + 1 is an integer greater than N. So: From our supposition that there are a finite number of integers, we have derived the following conradiction; that there is a number N which is greater than all integers, and that there is an integer greater than N. From our supposition, we derived a contradiction. Thefore, we know that our supposition is false. There are not a finite number of integers.
More on that can be found here.
The law of the excluded middle is just the principle that every statement is either true or not true. Some people do harbor doubts about this one for certain types of statements. For example Aristotle and many since him have wondered whether statements about the future are neither true nor not true, but rather only become true or not true as the future “becomes” the present. But when it comes to statements in the present tense, the law is generally taken to be practically axiomatic. (And in fact most thinkers believe the law is true even for future-tense statements as well.) here is more on the law of the excluded middle, as well as the closely related law of noncontradiction. (The LNC underlies validity of the reductio ad absurdum argument form by the way.)
The upshot of all this is that you can not criticize an argument (as you did) by pointing out that it is a reductio ad absurdum. Similarly, to say that an argument seems to rely on the law of the excluded middle is not a criticism except in certain philosophically rarified contexts.
Now onto a separate issue: Your misunderstanding of my position regarding children on airplanes. I said that I do not want parents to feel they should refrain from taking their children on airplanes, even if those parents think it entirely possible their children will throw a serious tantrum during the flight. I did not say, and I do not believe, what you imputed to me: that it is impossible for children to make it through a flight without throwing a tantrum. I think it very possible for tantrum-less flights to occur. I did say I am willing to incur the risk that someone’s children may throw a tantrum on my flight. But this does not imply (as you seemed to think it does) that I think it is a certainty that children must misbehave on an airplane.
I think a good parent can know that there is a good chance her child will throw a serious tantrum on an airplane trip. My position is, I do not want that parent to feel obligated to refrain from bringing the child onto an airplane, and I think most people should feel the same way I do about this.
With that said, to be honest, I’m not sure you and I disagree (though it seems you think we do). You said below that you think both sides should show consideration for others. I agree with this. I think I should be tolerant of tantruming kids on the plane, and I think parents should do everything they can–within reason–to prevent tantruming kids on a plane. Where do you and I disagree? Is it over the “within reason” clause?
-FrL-
This is a really interesting argument, especially the part I quoted. Group dynamics come into play heavily when in an enclosed space like an airplane. How many other understanding adults are around? Will one upset passenger keep their mouths shut and bear it, albeit gracelessly, because of pressure from a group of strangers? At what point do they allow their own sense of entitlement ( " I paid for this ticket and by god I should be allowed to sleep…not listen to your child screaming and crying." ) affect their judgement in a negative way?
The society as defined by a group of strangers on an airplane does have rules. Unfortunately for thoes folks in here ranting about out of control children, the rules are enforced ( or, to be fair, not enforced ) by the personnel on the plane working for the carrier. Those folks have the unenviable job of balancing social order and group dynamic against the rules of the road. ( s.i.c.)
It may be that there is no other “society” that one finds one’s self in that is by design so incredibly limiting in terms of escape for an upset witness and/or a parent wishing to remove a child to a quieter and more private area.
Even on a moving train, you can leave one car for another and in doing so spare one group the tantrumming child for a while. The only other enclosed space I can think of like this is a tour bus. I suspect there are tales of bus drivers putting people off of their bus because of a disruptive child, but I don’t know of any.
So, back to your quote, Rubystreak. No matter what the combination on an airplane of folks inclined to be forgiving and folks inclined to be upset and unforgiving, in all cases control is wrested from their hands by the rules of the road. Because people need to fly ( I don’t want to down that angry road again. Let’s just say that people need to fly, for now, ok? ), they all surrender control of their physical surroundings. They have no choice. In about 6 hours, unless the storms ground my flight, I’ll get to be on two airplanes today. I must fly for work. I must obey the rules, and also work within the fragile and temporary dynamics of a given group of people assembled randomly who make up the society of those two flights, for the duration of each flight.
It says nothing about the groups of people as they exist in their own lives whether or not they like being around kids. The only dynamic of any import is whether or not the group of people on that plane can adhere to the rules and manage to fly together without making problems.
(Now, I understand how parents can think this things work - because they CAN work - they work wonderfully on my son, who will respond to hairy eyeball or even the threat of having a privilege removed).
My daughter is someone we’ve thought was a little difficult. Describing her behavior to her pediatrician we were assured she was “a challenging child, but well within the range of normal and would outgrow it.” And when she went into kindergarten we talked to her kindergarten teacher about it. And we were told that out of her class of 16 kids - five of them tantrummed regularly (and my daughter was not one of the five) and that this was normal - the school didn’t think it unusual unless there were other behaviors or indications until THIRD grade and there were no indications we should take our daughter in to a child psychologist. (We did have her pulled in first grade from some of her peers that really had poor behavior). She is much better at seven, NEVER has public tantrums anymore and now does the teenager “go to her room and pout” thing rather than the kicking and screaming that would still occasionally happen two years ago.
I have to agree with that. If i go into a store filled with a screeching kid i’ll leave, even if I had intended to buy something. I can’t stand that noise. If I notice that there always seems to be a screeching kid in that particular store I’ll just stop going there.
I’m lost on that one too. I’m black and I don’t really like kids either.
Well, if you want to talk about screaming kid stories, heres my personal favourite. My wife and I had gone to see a movie, Blade, when it first came to theatres. We went to the late show at the local mall which was about 9:30 PM.
So did another guy, his wife and their screaming snot machine. This kid was maybe 2 or 3. the little monster wouldn’t stop screeching and even in this rather large theatre it was impossible to drown him out and watch the movie. After what seemed like a good 40 minutes, but was probably only 15, the couple left with the kid. Whether they calmed him down or came back I don’t know. I was too pissed off at that point. I mentioned to my wife on our way home how I thought it was rude and irresponsible for those people to have brought the child with them. My wife, who is no fan of screaming children, tried to play devil’s advocate by saying “Maybe they wanted to see the movie and couldn’t get a baby sitter.”
Guess what? They don’t see the stinking movie then! They had the choice to have that kid and so its their problem! Not to mention that the kid was way too young to even understand the movie. We go to the late showings of movies specifically to avoid crap like that. Now honestly, that was the parents fault and not the child. But that doesn’t mean that people won’t be annoyed to downright angry about it.
That’s why the discussion of “its bad to say you don’t like kids” is at least interesting. I don’t actually hate kids, but I certainly don’t like them enough to have one. I’ve babysat for friends and neighbors, I’ve watched kids and I’ve worked in summer camps. I don’t have the patience to deal with them on a long term basis. (I’m also not a big fan of teenagers, but that’s a different thread). I don’t see whats so wrong about a person not liking children. It doesn’t mean they want to hurt kids or anything…it just means they’d prefer not to be around them. Especially when in a place like Borders or a café when the little brat feels like screaming its head off.
While I agree that “society” is composed of multiple sub-societies, they all have one and only one thing in common - they are all composed of humans, who eventually get old and die. Unless the individual members of such society, or societies, are replaced, they will cease to exist.
This is the fundamental, the bedrock, the basic reason why having kids will always be “more valuable” than not doing so, and subject to a certain degree of privilege. It isn’t because parents are better people, more moral and more selfless. It is simple mechanics. Societies require replacement members to survive, and without child-producing, they will die off.
This is similar to the “tragedy of the commons” situation - as everyone benefits from having new children around, in ways that may not be instantly apparent to them. Parents bear much of the burden for raising children, yet everyone benefits from having children around - the squalling baby annoying you in Chapters, or others just like her, will grow up to pay for your social security. Not to mention running the whole infrastructure of society when you are too old to do so.
Moreover, all humans now alive benefited from this “privilege” themselves, as all were once children. I think that this puts them under a reciprocal obligation to put up with a certain amount of annoyance from new humans. Seems a pretty tiny price to pay.
That being said, there are obviously situations and settings which are inappropriate for children, and there are obviously parents who are rude and inconsiderate. I merely state that, all things being equal, there are sound reasons why children ought to be granted leeway not given to adults and, yes, “privileged”.
The issue is whether your dislike of kids ought to be indulged or granted equal status by others to someone elses’ desire to have their kids around.
I’d say that yes, the parents taking a little kid into an adult movie like Blade is in the wrong (is it even legal? I thought these things had age restrictions). In more generally public settings however, the rights of those with kids ought to prevail over your right to not be subjected to children.
Dislike of kids may be too strong a description for me. I’m sorry if i came off that way, or said it. I prefer to not be around small children but I don’t dislike them.
But I do disagree in one thing…I don’t think anyone’s rights are more important than mine just because they have kids. I know many will not agree with that, and thats fine.
Way I see it, the rights are simply different.
A person who would prefer not being around kids presumably has some sort of right not to be subjected to small kids.
On the other hand, parents of small kids have a right to take them out in public, where they may encounter those who dislike being subjected to kids.
There can be no “equality of rights” here, as one ‘right’ must give way to the other: either those who dislike kids have to put up with having 'em around, or those with kids have to keep 'em out of sight. One or the other must be preferred.
My argument is that the default setting is that the rights of parents to take their kids out is to be preferred, subject to the caveat that there may, on a case-by-case basis, be settings in which young children are not appropriate. If this is interpreted as meaning “someone’s rights are more important than yours”, so be it - I think there are quite sound reasons already described why children should be ‘privileged’ in this manner.
Everyone’s rights are equal. You have the right to go to the bookstore, and so does Mommy. You do not have the right to clear public spaces of anything that might annoy you, and neither does she.
ETA: notice I said “annoy”, not pour food on, or hit, or whatever. That’s over the line, and it’s not what I’m talking about.
I think it’s simply that kids’ needs, and therefore their rights, are vastly different from adults’. They need to move, and they need to make (some) noise, it’s just the way they are.
It’s like parking for the disabled - they don’t have a greater “right” to shop, but their needs are different and should be honored.
I do agree, though, that children (under age 10?) should simply be BANNED from R-rated movies. Period. They don’t belong in bars or expensive (i.e., no crayons or booster seats) restaurants. Same with adult concerts or plays.
In this case, I agree with you that this is a totally inappropriate venue for a kid. Additionally, I can’t imagine taking my kid to a 9:30 showing of anything (he goes to sleep around 8 or 8:30), let alone a really loud, violent movie. Talk about scary - movies in theaters seem loud to me. I can’t imagine what they might sound like to a tired toddler.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s bad that you don’t like to be around small children. Some people love kids, some people don’t. Heck, I’m still not much of a baby person unless it’s my kid. Though I’m a lot more understanding when others’ small children misbehave in public. It’s unfortunate, but a lot of small children learn how to behave in public by misbehaving in public and having resultant consequences. I’m fortunate enough to have avoided public scenes for far (my toddler has started throwing tantrums, but is still young enough that they stop when I pick him up), but when others’ kids lose it, yeah it stinks, but I don’t usually care if the parents respond.
Still, I don’t think the comparison of places like Borders is the greatest - large retail bookstores are vastly different from a movie theater. It’s reasonable to expect quiet in a movie theater. However, lots of people host public events in Borders - most of our local stores host book groups/clubs, story time for kids, live music, book readings, signings, etc. And while I don’t think kids should be allowed to run around screaming in a book store, most Borders I’ve been to have a fairly substantial kids’ section, complete with places kids can sit, play and read. Seems like a good place for a kid to me. It also seems likely that, at some point or another, some kid who happens to be in the kids’ section is going to lose it. You know, sort of a “you build it, they will come” thing. You include a kids’ section in a store, kids will show up. Some kids will throw tantrums, etc.