Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.
To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.
To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?
This question reminds me of the question of whether the tortures of the Inquisition were justifiable on the basis of saving people's souls.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.
To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?
Is this activity legal? If not, I would certainly consider grassing 'em up to the rozzers.
Originally posted by JS357 This question reminds me of the question of whether the tortures of the Inquisition were justifiable on the basis of saving people's souls.
This has nothing to do with intent, but quite a lot to do with our own personal limits.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.
To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?
To what extent am I informed about the credibility of said destruction?
For example, if someone (hypothetically speaking) could see the future and foresaw an airplane would crash in the middle of a park some day and that I shouldn't let my kids play on the swings after 16:00, then assigning this warning an almost zero credibility value I may well fail to prevent my kid setting off to his/her doom in spite of information that could save his/her life.
Originally posted by Agerg To what extent am I informed about the credibility of said destruction?
For example, if someone (hypothetically speaking) could see the future and foresaw an airplane would crash in the middle of a park some day and that I shouldn't let my kids play on the swings after 16:00, then assigning this warning an almost zero credibility value I may well fail to prevent my kid setting off to his/her doom in spite of information that could save his/her life.
Thus the caveat, "assured destruction." To date, we have no guarantee that a course of action will always culminate in said results, yet we have a pretty solid basis to disallow our children to, say, play on the interstate.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Thus the caveat, "assured destruction." To date, we have no guarantee that a course of action will always culminate in said results, yet we have a pretty solid basis to disallow our children to, say, play on the interstate.
I see your point, but then in my example, from the perspective of the person who foresaw the plane crash, destruction is assured should I let my kids play at the soon to be crash site. Yet given knowledge of this future event I still wouldn't take steps to prevent my kids going near it. The reason for this is being that I don't find his warning credible.
As regards playing on the interstate, in this case it would be from our perspective that destruction is almost assured, any warnings that they shouldn't play there would be measured to be very credible.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Assume the inevitability of destruction destined for your child were they given to a certain unnamed activity.
To what extent would you go to assure they abstained from this activity? What tactics would you employ to adequately hedge them from assured destruction?
I think I would go to great lengths, but I am not sure exactly how far unless I was actually faced with such a situation.
Lets take an example of a possible situation:
A civil war breaks out and I can either watch my child die in the war (and I am sure he will die) or turn him in to the enemy where I know he will spend many years in a prisoner of war camp being subjected to all kinds or torture, but will live.
A hard choice, but at a guess I might go with the prisoner of war camp as that is probably what I would choose for myself.
Originally posted by twhitehead I think I would go to great lengths, but I am not sure exactly how far unless I was actually faced with such a situation.
Lets take an example of a possible situation:
A civil war breaks out and I can either watch my child die in the war (and I am sure he will die) or turn him in to the enemy where I know he will spend many years in a prisoner of war ca ...[text shortened]... ess I might go with the prisoner of war camp as that is probably what I would choose for myself.
I suppose the merits of condemning said child to be a POW depends on the degree of hatred, history (etc...) the enemy has towards the other. Is it better to exist if the only thing you gain from it is awareness of your own suffering?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH This has nothing to do with intent, but quite a lot to do with our own personal limits.
I suggest that people who reply indicate whether they have raised any children, and use actual, not hypothetical examples.
I would probably react instinctively to some immediate unpredicted danger, trying my best to prevent harm. But in some situations, we must allow our children to make mistakes, even mistakes that may harm them. Otherwise they will not learn the importance of assessing the risks themselves. When I was 9, I was hit by a car while bicycle riding and almost lost a leg. When I taught my daughter to ride a bicycle, I knew that she would at some time unsupervised in the street like I had been. But you do the best you can knowing that you not only have to protect your child, you have to make them ready to protect themselves when you aren't there to protect them, and no matter how well it goes, you will never feel quite comfortable.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH So you're comfortable with your child's destruction insofar as the activity is legal?
That's a very peculiar way of looking at things.
You get that from what I said? You should stick to reading the words I actually wrote rather than making up some other ones for me.
Originally posted by JS357 I suggest that people who reply indicate whether they have raised any children, and use actual, not hypothetical examples.
I would probably react instinctively to some immediate unpredicted danger, trying my best to prevent harm. But in some situations, we must allow our children to make mistakes, even mistakes that may harm them. Otherwise they will not le ...[text shortened]... t there to protect them, and no matter how well it goes, you will never feel quite comfortable.
call me cynical but I suspect that this thread is a strategy on Freaky's part to drive forward the virtue of accepting Christ given (from his perspective) destruction is assured if we don't. In that case hypotheticals are fine
Originally posted by Agerg call me cynical but I suspect that this thread is a strategy on Freaky's part to drive forward the virtue of accepting Christ given (from his perspective) destruction is assured if we don't. In that case hypotheticals are fine
might be wrong though :/
This is why I replied "This question reminds me of the question of whether the tortures of the Inquisition were justifiable on the basis of saving people's souls." Simple fact -- the OP reminded me of that.
My suggestion should really be to stick to the topic using real-world scenarios in child rearing, so it won't drift off that topic into the vein we both suspect. That vein has already been mined out.
Originally posted by JS357 This is why I replied "This question reminds me of the question of whether the tortures of the Inquisition were justifiable on the basis of saving people's souls." Simple fact -- the OP reminded me of that.
My suggestion should really be to stick to the topic using real-world scenarios in child rearing, so it won't drift off that topic into the vein we both suspect. That vein has already been mined out.
It is like Christ allowing Himself to be crucified in hopes of saving our souls or God giving his only begotten Son to be tortured on the cross for the same reason.
24 Jul '12 15:58
To What Extent
Back to Top