Child Silencer Device... Is it Ethical?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Let's play a thought experiment.

In this thought experiment, you realize that I was stating the list of ways your children's cries inform you that they need various things from you.

I'll perform my part of the thought experiment by forgetting that you somehow missed this very obvious fact.

Show deaf couples not be able to raise children? Same premise right?

There's a message, it's a pop up hell it might even include an alarm, it just won't be the child screaming when you're at work but had to take him/her.

Deaf couples who raise children still have a language they use. Strangely Sign Language has been around for longer than computing technology.

That's great, except it's a total non sequitur.

No it is not. Do you even know what the term means?

Considering that "a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement" pretty much sums it up, yeah. I got the definition. I'm not arguing that it's going to physically impair their breathing, chum. I'm arguing that learning communication skills is a "hands-on" deal. The child screams, the parent engages. The child learns that screaming isn't needed by engaging, not ignoring.

[Ripoll]

Show deaf couples not be able to raise children? Same premise right?

There's a message, it's a pop up hell it might even include an alarm, it just won't be the child screaming when you're at work but had to take him/her.

Deaf couples who raise children still have a language they use. Strangely Sign Language has been around for longer than computing technology.

I'm sure a message you can feel vibrate is more noticeable than sign language, considering you have to grab the attention of your parent physically and if you're under 4 you can't really do that. In fact 4 year olds really don't know sign language.

This invention would be terrific for deaf parents to give more attention to their children.

[Lost heros]

Source for dogs and children being equal?

None of these symptoms would occur because of a semi loose fitting collar, as they do not with dogs.

I never implied they were both equal, I just stated that this idea somehow harming the health of children is bullshit.

Psychological health is different from biological health. Assuming the kid doesn't starve from negligence, I don't see how silencing them wouldn't have an adverse effect on their psychological health.

[Ripoll]

None of these symptoms would occur because of a semi loose fitting collar, as they do not with dogs.

I never implied they were both equal, I just stated that this idea somehow harming the health of children is bullshit.

Psychological health is different from biological health. Assuming the kid doesn't starve from negligence, I don't see how silencing them wouldn't have an adverse effect on their psychological health.

Because they're 4 and under? They don't remember most of this when they grow older.

[Laerod]

Psychological health is different from biological health. Assuming the kid doesn't starve from negligence, I don't see how silencing them wouldn't have an adverse effect on their psychological health.

Because they're 4 and under? They don't remember most of this when they grow older.

Not consciously. Things that babies and toddlers experience at that age most certainly influence them later on in life. In particular the ability to trust is something that forms around this age, unless I'm very much mistaken.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Deaf couples who raise children still have a language they use. Strangely Sign Language has been around for longer than computing technology.

I'm sure a message you can feel vibrate is more noticeable than sign language, considering you have to grab the attention of your parent physically and if you're under 4 you can't really do that. In fact 4 year olds really don't know sign language.

This invention would be terrific for deaf parents to give more attention to their children.

You can do the same with an iPad without silencing the child.

[Ximea]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

The device is imperfect because some parents will choose not to take advantage of it. Therefore, I'll still have to put up with secondhand screaming. However, I would happily purchase a device which makes children completely inaudible to the wearer.

[Lost heros]

Psychological health is different from biological health. Assuming the kid doesn't starve from negligence, I don't see how silencing them wouldn't have an adverse effect on their psychological health.

Because they're 4 and under? They don't remember most of this when they grow older.

That doesn't change the fact that they are highly impressionable.

[Laerod]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

The device is imperfect because some parents will choose not to take advantage of it. Therefore, I'll still have to put up with secondhand screaming. However, I would happily purchase a device which makes children completely inaudible to the wearer.

Noise-cancelling headphones?

[Purpelia]

I'm not arguing that it's going to physically impair their breathing, chum. I'm arguing that learning communication skills is a "hands-on" deal. The child screams, the parent engages. The child learns that screaming isn't needed by engaging, not ignoring.

Are you now? Do tell, which of these is it in particular?

Starvation.
Sanitation.
Injuries which require attention.
Choking.
Dehydration.
Requiring reassurance, love, and affection.

These are all not things.

Just underline it for me. And no, it does not count unless you specifically say it. I don't give a dam about what you implied, meant to say or thought was "obvious" or other garbage like that.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I'm not arguing that it's going to physically impair their breathing, chum. I'm arguing that learning communication skills is a "hands-on" deal. The child screams, the parent engages. The child learns that screaming isn't needed by engaging, not ignoring.

Are you now? Do tell, which of these is it in particular?

Starvation.
Sanitation.
Injuries which require attention.
Choking.
Dehydration.
Requiring reassurance, love, and affection.

These are all not things.

Just underline it for me. And no, it does not count unless you specifically say it. I don't give a dam about what you implied, meant to say or thought was "obvious" or other garbage like that.

Everyone has a voice and everyone has the right to be heard. Though I suppose if this whole collar thing we're only allowed for children 4 and under it would be fine.

Because, of course, child abuse is not a thing.

What is context? Can you eat it?

[Wulfcastle]

Since in the adult world, we don't allow adults to strike other adults, beating your children seems like a wholly inappropriate way to "prepare them for adult life".

It teaches them that there are immediate and unpleasant consequences for breaking the rules. For adults, it's prison. For children, it's a belt.

I'm not saying that children should be beaten for no reason, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's in any way okay to actually injure the child.
I'm just saying that the threat of corporal punishment kept children polite and respectful for thousands of years, and that I think it's ridiculous that modern society is abandoning a practice that has worked since the dawn of civilization.

[Laerod]

Since in the adult world, we don't allow adults to strike other adults, beating your children seems like a wholly inappropriate way to "prepare them for adult life".

It teaches them that there are immediate and unpleasant consequences for breaking the rules, and it teaches them that life isn't fair.

I'm not saying that children should be beaten for no reason, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's in any way okay to actually injure the child.
I'm just saying that the threat of corporal punishment kept children polite and respectful for thousands of years, and that I think it's ridiculous that modern society is abandoning a practice that has worked since the dawn of civilization.

It hasn't worked. It's lead to some of the worst atrocities in the past hundred years.

[Wulfcastle]

It teaches them that there are immediate and unpleasant consequences for breaking the rules, and it teaches them that life isn't fair.

I'm not saying that children should be beaten for no reason, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's in any way okay to actually injure the child.
I'm just saying that the threat of corporal punishment kept children polite and respectful for thousands of years, and that I think it's ridiculous that modern society is abandoning a practice that has worked since the dawn of civilization.

It hasn't worked. It's lead to some of the worst atrocities in the past hundred years.

That's a pretty bold claim.
I'm going to need to see some evidence.

[Ripoll]

I'm sure a message you can feel vibrate is more noticeable than sign language, considering you have to grab the attention of your parent physically and if you're under 4 you can't really do that. In fact 4 year olds really don't know sign language.

This invention would be terrific for deaf parents to give more attention to their children.

You can do the same with an iPad without silencing the child.

and you can silence a child without a mute collar, why would silencing the child be such a horrid thing any hoot if you can't even hear them anyway?

[The Emerald Dawn]

You can do the same with an iPad without silencing the child.

and you can silence a child without a mute collar, why would silencing the child be such a horrid thing any hoot if you can't even hear them anyway?

Because other people can hear them in an emergency. Or can hear the pattern of abuse as it happens.

Strangely, people are concerned when they constantly hear a child crying that there may actually be something wrong.

"It takes a village" and all.

[Lost heros]

Since in the adult world, we don't allow adults to strike other adults, beating your children seems like a wholly inappropriate way to "prepare them for adult life".

It teaches them that there are immediate and unpleasant consequences for breaking the rules. For adults, it's prison. For children, it's a belt.

I'm not saying that children should be beaten for no reason, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's in any way okay to actually injure the child.
I'm just saying that the threat of corporal punishment kept children polite and respectful for thousands of years, and that I think it's ridiculous that modern society is abandoning a practice that has worked since the dawn of civilization.

Why do so many people on this thread think quiet = good?

Do you want to know why children who received corporal punishment were quiet? Because they were scared. Because they didn't want to be hit for speaking their mind. Yes, we are moving away from cutting off a child's speech. We're moving towards letting children talk, letting children be comfortable with talking.

This isn't to say every spanked child became fearful of their parents, but it's not unprecedented that many did.

[Ripoll]

It teaches them that there are immediate and unpleasant consequences for breaking the rules. For adults, it's prison. For children, it's a belt.

I'm not saying that children should be beaten for no reason, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's in any way okay to actually injure the child.
I'm just saying that the threat of corporal punishment kept children polite and respectful for thousands of years, and that I think it's ridiculous that modern society is abandoning a practice that has worked since the dawn of civilization.

Why do so many people on this thread think quiet = good?

Do you want to know why children who received corporal punishment were quiet? Because they were scared. Because they didn't want to be hit for speaking their mind. Yes, we are moving away from cutting off a child's speech. We're moving towards letting children talk, letting children be comfortable with talking.

This isn't to say every spanked child became fearful of their parents, but it's not unprecedented that many did.

It's not a shock collar, there is no negative reinforcement, as for my personal opinion I would only be for this if it was specifically designed for children under 4.

[Laerod]

It hasn't worked. It's lead to some of the worst atrocities in the past hundred years.

That's a pretty bold claim.
I'm going to need to see some evidence.

I told you the first time. Scroll back a couple pages.

[Lost heros]

You can do the same with an iPad without silencing the child.

and you can silence a child without a mute collar, why would silencing the child be such a horrid thing any hoot if you can't even hear them anyway?

Please tell me you're kidding.

You don't actually think that just because you can't hear or see a problem it doesn't exist.

[Ripoll]

and you can silence a child without a mute collar, why would silencing the child be such a horrid thing any hoot if you can't even hear them anyway?

Because other people can hear them in an emergency. Or can hear the pattern of abuse as it happens.

Strangely, people are concerned when they constantly hear a child crying that there may actually be something wrong.

"It takes a village" and all.

There's still facial expression, and the noise of the device and all to let parents know there is something wrong. And the message itself, with wearable tech soon enough you'll see it pop up without having to pull anything out either.

Again mute collar =/= abuse

[Ripoll]

and you can silence a child without a mute collar, why would silencing the child be such a horrid thing any hoot if you can't even hear them anyway?

Please tell me you're kidding.

You don't actually think that just because you can't hear or see a problem it doesn't exist.

Maybe you should read the context behind the argument

(it's deaf parents)

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because other people can hear them in an emergency. Or can hear the pattern of abuse as it happens.

Strangely, people are concerned when they constantly hear a child crying that there may actually be something wrong.

"It takes a village" and all.

There's still facial expression, and the noise of the device and all to let parents know there is something wrong. And the message itself, with wearable tech soon enough you'll see it pop up without having to pull anything out either.

Again mute collar =/= abuse

You need to source why it wouldn't be abuse. Because almost every modern society actually has ruled that social confinement is actually torture.

[Lost heros]

Why do so many people on this thread think quiet = good?

Do you want to know why children who received corporal punishment were quiet? Because they were scared. Because they didn't want to be hit for speaking their mind. Yes, we are moving away from cutting off a child's speech. We're moving towards letting children talk, letting children be comfortable with talking.

This isn't to say every spanked child became fearful of their parents, but it's not unprecedented that many did.

It's not a shock collar, there is no negative reinforcement, as for my personal opinion I would only be for this if it was specifically designed for children under 4.

Read the post. I was talking about corporal punishment.

Regardless, just because a child is young doesn't mean you can't negatively affect development by silencing the child.

[Ripoll]

There's still facial expression, and the noise of the device and all to let parents know there is something wrong. And the message itself, with wearable tech soon enough you'll see it pop up without having to pull anything out either.

Again mute collar =/= abuse

You need to source why it wouldn't be abuse. Because almost every modern society actually has ruled that social confinement is actually torture.

How about it not being social confinement? Also they said it only really works for screaming or any other high pitch overly emotional response, not indefinite mutage.

And in my personal opinion on how I view this it would only be applicable to children 4 and under.